Not By Faith Alone: Is Ken Wilson's Gospel What the Bible Teaches?

Amazingly, some people who identify as Free Grace in their theology are now actually teaching the Roman Catholic dogma that faith plus works is a saving message![1] Take, for example, one Oxford scholar named Dr. Ken Wilson. Dr. Wilson identifies as a Free Grace theologian, yet he promotes the idea that a person can saved (justified) by faith plus works! Notice what he says:

“Evangelicals want to oust some Christians as ‘true Christians’ because they add works for final salvation. Romans Catholics, Calvinists, Arminians and other Protestants all add works. Catholics require the ticket of good works at the beginning or during the ride. [...] Catholics overtly require works for justification (faith + works → justification).”[2] 

“That is the problem with ‘faith alone in Christ alone’ as a requirement for justification. I believe ‘faith alone in Christ alone’ to be a true statement. But it does not mean that any addition of works nullifies a person's faith in Jesus Christ as God and Savior from sin for justification.”[3] 

“Someone could believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and simultaneously think justification also requires chewing holy bubblegum five minutes every day. That person would be wrong, but would still be justified....”[4] 

“The early church (wrongly) considered water baptism to be essential for salvation. Baptism is a work. According to Wilkin’s heresy, none of these early Christians [?] could be saved ["by believing that faith and works are necessary to escape eternal condemnation"] because they added the work of baptism to faith in Christ.”[5] 

In other words, Wilson is saying that faith plus works is a saving message! Wilson is promoting the Roman Catholic dogma of baptismal regeneration. But what does the Bible say? The apostle Paul says, “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power” (1 Cor. 1:17, ESV).

To be clear, Wilson says that he believes in justification by faith alone, yet in his view a “faith + works” gospel is still a saving message. But in light of the apostle Paul’s warning in Galatians 1:6-9 against “any other gospel” (other than the gospel of the grace of God), Wilson’s legitimizing of a faith plus works gospel is extremely troubling. As the apostle Paul says, “there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:7, ESV). Commenting on Galatians 1:6-9, the words of Dr. Scofield are appropriate when he says: “The test of the Gospel is grace. If the message excludes grace, or mingles law [works] with grace as the means either of justification or sanctification (Gal. 2.21; 3.1-3), or denies the fact or guilt of sin which alone gives grace its occasion and opportunity, it is ‘another’ gospel, and the preacher of it is under the anathema of God (vs. 8, 9).”[6] 

Let's examine this teaching of a “faith + works” gospel in more detail because this seems to be the crux of Wilson's argument. Wilson says in his book that it is “misrepresentation” to label “faith in Christ plus works as ‘works salvation’....It is faith (plus works) salvation.”[7] But this is merely equivocation. Any work or works added to salvation by grace nullifies grace! (See Romans 11:6; Gal. 2:21.) Wilson follows up by saying, “Scripture states that faith alone saves and works are not required (Rom. 4:1-8, Eph. 2:8). It does not say faith in Jesus Christ plus erroneously adding works cannot save (justify).”[8] It doesn’t? Actually it does! See Romans 3:24, “Being justified freely by His grace”; Romans 3:28, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law”; Romans 4:4-5, “To him that does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness”; “Titus 3:5, “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us.” I also find it telling that although Wilson cited Ephesians 2:8, he omitted Ephesians 2:9, “Not of works, lest any man should boast.” One way to tell if someone’s theology doesn’t line up with the Bible is if they conveniently omit the Bible verses that highlight their error. Ken Wilson points this out in regards to Bob Wilkin, saying: “Wilkin cites John 3:16 without adding 3:17 ‘that the world through him might be saved.’ This smacks of highly selective eisegesis.”[9] Quite true, but ironically the same point can be made in regards to Ken Wilson and Ephesians 2:8-9! Wilson cites Ephesians 2:8 without adding 2:9, “Not of works, lest any man should boast.” This also smacks of highly selective eisegesis! Wilkin omitted John 3:17; Wilson omits Ephesians 2:9. The fact that Wilson omits Ephesians 2:9 is significant since it’s a key verse highlighting Wilson’s false teaching on the gospel. William MacDonald explains further in his Believer’s Bible Commentary. Commenting on Ephesians 2:9, MacDonald writes the following: “It is not of works, that is, it is not something a person can earn through supposedly meritorious deeds. [...] People are not saved by works. And they are not saved by faith plus works. They are saved through faith alone. The minute you add works of any kind or in any amount as a means of gaining eternal life, salvation is no longer by grace (Rom. 11:6). One reason that works are positively excluded is to prevent human boasting. If anyone could be saved by his works, then he would have reason to boast before God. This is impossible (Rom. 3:27).”[10] 

Wilson goes on to summarize by saying, “Faith alone still saves, regardless of additions.”[11] But Wilson doesn’t seem to understand that it’s not “faith alone” if you add anything to it! (See Gal. 1:6-9, 2:21.) Wilson is saying that a person can be saved (justified) by faith plus works. How is that not heresy? Indeed, the New Testament Greek scholar Kenneth S. Wuest (whom Wilson quotes approvingly in his book) affirms, “and thus in the providence of God, the Church has the letter to the Galatians, and has found it a tower of strength and a bulwark against the heresy which teaches that salvation is appropriated by faith plus works.”[12] 

The Bible makes it abundantly clear that salvation (justification) is by faith alone in Christ alone, not by faith plus works! "Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24, KJV).

References:

[1] Kenneth Wilson, Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society (Regula Fidei Press, 2021), pp. 10-11, 52, 133-134, 202-203, 205. Ken Wilson is a professor of Systematic Theology and Church History at Grace School of Theology in The Woodlands, Texas. Note: I agree with the main point of Wilson’s book, but he goes too far when he concludes that a person can become a Christian without faith alone in Christ alone. Wilson argues that Roman Catholics preach a saving message even though “Catholics overtly require works for justification (faith + works → justification).” (Wilson, Heresy, p. 133.)

[2] Ibid., p. 133.

[3] Ibid., p. 134.

[4] Ibid., p. 203.

[5] Ibid, p. 203.

[6] C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), p. 1241. Note 1 on Galatians 1:6.

[7] Kenneth Wilson, Heresy, p. 202, ellipsis added.

[8] Ibid., p. 202.

[9] Ibid., p. 106.

[10] William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), p. 1918, emphasis his.

[11] Kenneth Wilson, Heresy, p. 205.

[12] Kenneth S. Wuest, Galatians in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1944), p. 131. 

C. H. Spurgeon | Matthew 11:28

C. H. SPURGEON.

“Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Matthew 11:28.

* * * 

Although Spurgeon was a Calvinist, he actually sounds like an advocate of Free Grace theology when he shares the following thoughts on Matthew 11:28. Notice what Spurgeon says in a sermon titled “Christ’s Word With You” ‒ it’s still true today!

“‘Come unto me,’ says He, ‘and I will give you.’ That is the Gospel. ‘I will give you.’ You say, ‘Lord, I cannot give thee anything.’ He does not want anything. Come to Jesus, and He says, ‘I will give you.’ Not what you give to God, but what He gives to you, will be your salvation. ‘I will give you:’ that is the Gospel in four words. Will you come and have it? It lies open before you. Jesus wants nothing of you. Suppose you were to become Christ’s disciple, and serve Him with all your might throughout your life ‒ in what way would that enrich Him? He has died for you: how can you ever pay Him for that? He lives in heaven to plead for you, and He loves you; how can you ever reward Him for that? Our hope is not in what we can give to Him, but in what He gives to us.”[1]

Reference:

[1] C. H. Spurgeon, “Christ's Word With You.” Sermon 1691. June 12, 1881. Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 28. 

A Response to Bob Wilkin: "Is Lordship Salvation a Saving Message?"

Bob Wilkin, the executive director of the Grace Evangelical Society (GES), wrote an article in the May/June 2019 edition of the Grace In Focus magazine titled “Is Lordship Salvation a Saving Message?” In the article, Wilkin writes:

“Some (many?) in Free Grace circles believe the following is true: Anyone who believes that Jesus is God and that He died on the cross for our sins and rose bodily from the dead on the third day is born again. Well, Lordship Salvation people believe that. So do Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Church of Christ, Assemblies of God, and so forth. Most who call themselves Christians believe that. […] What do you think? Is a person born again if he thinks that faith in Christ is not enough to be born again?”[1]

The short answer is no, of course not. Lordship Salvation is not a saving message. Not if you mean that a person has to surrender every area of his or her life to Christ’s Lordship before they can become worthy of salvation. That’s a faith plus works gospel! That’s a false gospel! The apostle Paul clearly denounces such a gospel in his epistle to the Galatians (see Gal. 1:6-9; cf. Acts 13:38-41).

This question (it’s really an objection) has come up a number of times in Free Grace circles over the years, in relation to the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15. Jeremy Myers put forward a variation of this question some years ago in his paper titled “The Gospel Is More Than ‘Faith Alone in Christ Alone’”. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Myers asks: 

“But who in Christendom, except for the liberal (and now postmodern) theologians, doesn’t believe these three (or four) truths? Almost everybody in most evangelical schools and churches believes that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again. So if this is all that is necessary to receive everlasting life, then almost everyone in Christendom is going to heaven—even all those who believe that our own good works and faithfulness are required along with Christ’s sacrifice.”[2]

And now Bob Wilkin is asking this question again. Well, I think the answer is simple. The word “saved” in 1 Corinthians 15:2 has more than one sense; it has two and even three senses. It can refer to justification (past salvation), sanctification (present salvation), and/or glorification (future salvation).[3] The context will help to determine which sense is being used in the passage (see 1 Cor. 15:1-11; cf. 1 Cor. 1:18-21, 30).

Many Lordship people are saved in spite of their beliefs about Lordship Salvation because at some point in their life, they believed the gospel. The key word here is “believed”. I’m not talking about faith plus works. I’m talking about faith alone. In other words, if any Lordship person is saved (saved from hell), it’s because at some point in their life they believed the gospel by faith alone. You see, Roman Catholics (for example) don’t really believe the gospel. Because by definition, the word “believe” excludes works.[4] So they don’t really believe the gospel because if they did it would exclude works. The Roman Catholics say they believe the gospel, but like so often happens with the cults and false religions, they have redefined the meaning of believe so as to make it include works. But that’s not what the Bible means when it talks about believing.[5] A key verse is Romans 4:4-5 which says: “Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned by grace but as a debt. But to the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”

This is important to understand because GES people say that Roman Catholics also believe the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 and they are not saved, so the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 isn’t the saving message because it does not include the teaching of faith alone. But such reasoning is false. In 1 Corinthians 15, the apostle Paul includes the teaching of faith alone because the language that Paul uses is consistent with grace (cf. Rom. 11:6). Paul uses the words “received” (verse 1) and “believed” (verse 11). And as I just noted above, when the Bible uses the word believe it doesn’t include works – in fact, it actually excludes them (see Romans 4:4-5). And in regards to Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:2, even Zane Hodges has said that the verb translated “hold fast” (Gr. katecho) can refer to a person initially taking hold of (or believing) the gospel message. Regarding this, Hodges writes the following:

“The problem in correctly understanding this verse [1 Cor. 15:2] is caused by the English translation. A very flexible Greek verb (katecho) is translated ‘hold fast’ in the New King James Version (the AV has ‘keep in memory’). But the verb could equally well be rendered ‘take hold of’ or ‘take possession of.’ In that case it would refer to the act of appropriating the truth of the Gospel by faith. Closer examination of the Greek text suggests that this is indeed the correct understanding. The Greek word order can be represented as follows: ‘by which also you are saved, by that word I preached to you, if you take hold of it, unless you believed in vain.’ From this it appears that Paul is thinking of the saving effect of the preached word when it is duly appropriated, unless in fact that appropriation (by faith) has been in vain. What he means by believing ‘in vain’ is made clear in verses 14 and 17: ‘And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty [the AV has ‘vain’ for ‘empty’]. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins [the AV has ‘vain’ for ‘futile’].’ First Corinthians 15:2 must be read in the light of the subsequent discussion about resurrection. Paul is simply saying, in verse 2, that the Gospel he has preached to them is a saving Gospel when it is appropriated by faith, unless, after all, the resurrection is false. In that case, no salvation has occurred at all and the faith his readers had exercised was futile. But naturally Paul absolutely insists on the reality of the resurrection of Christ. He therefore does not think that the Corinthians have believed ‘in vain.’”[6]

In regards to Hodges’ exegetical insights on 1 Corinthians 15:2, I’m in agreement with another Free Grace advocate who said: “My opinion is that Zane Hodges explained 1 Cor. 15:2 exceedingly well, evidently before he changed his mind about the gospel”.[7] What’s more, Hodges even used this passage evangelistically to explain salvation (justification) by faith alone! (For more information see my blog post: “Where Is Justification by Faith Alone in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11?”) So Wilkin’s argument that “you’ll not find a mention of justification by faith apart from works in this passage” is entirely beside the point, because the concept of justification by faith alone in Christ alone is clearly set forth by the apostle Paul in the passage.

* * * 

Objection: “Justification by faith alone” is not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:3-11, Wilkin puts it this way: “Try hard but you’ll not find a mention of justification by faith apart from works in this passage. You find that in Gal 2:15-16 and in Galatians 3 and Romans 3-4. But it just isn’t here. Anywhere.”[8]

Answer: Why does it have to be specifically mentioned? We don’t impose that requirement on other doctrines that are taught in God’s Word, such as the “Trinity” (which is never specifically mentioned in the Bible), nor in regards to the word “Rapture” (which similarly is a word that is not found in the English Bible). Does Wilkin not believe in the “Trinity” because that word isn’t found anywhere in the Bible? I think not. If the concept is taught, then that should be sufficient. On this point Wilkin agrees. Commenting on the gospel in Galatians, Wilkin writes: “We don’t need to use the word justification, but we must preach the concept or its equivalent if we wish to preach the gospel of Paul and Jesus. ‘He who believes in Me has everlasting life’ (John 6:47) is justification by faith alone in different words.”[9] So Wilkin clearly has a double standard in regards to how he (mis)interprets 1 Corinthians 15, a method of interpretation that he does not impose on the rest of the Bible.

I would also point out that justification is first tense salvation, and salvation is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15. Unsaved people in the city of Corinth were “being saved” (v. 2) as Christians evangelized them. People were being converted and added to the church in Corinth (cf. Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:18-21, 30).[10]

ENDNOTES:

[1] Bob Wilkin, “Is Lordship Salvation a Saving Message?” Grace In Focus (May/June 2019), p. 6.

[2] Jeremy D. Myers, “The Gospel Is More Than ‘Faith Alone in Christ Alone’” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 19 (Autumn 2006), p. 48.

[3] Cf. Harold Willmington, “He said, ‘I was, I am, but not yet.’” (2019), Dr. Willmington’s Personal Observations of the Bible. 13. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=willmington_personal_observations (accessed 1/22/23).

[4] “There is general agreement among Greek grammarians as to the meaning of the term believe (pisteuo). In his Greek-English lexicon Walter Bauer affirms: ‘believe (in), trust of relig. belief in a special sense, as faith in the Divinity that lays special emphasis on trust in his power and his nearness to help, in addition to being convinced that he exists and that his revelations or disclosures are true. In our lit. God and Christ are objects of this faith.’ (Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 661.) In the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown gives a similar understanding of believe (pisteuo): ‘The trusting acceptance and recognition of what God has done and promised in him [Christ].’ (Colin Brown, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 4 Vols. 1:588.) Likewise, W. E. Vine writes: “pisteuo...‘to believe,’ also ‘to be persuaded of,’ and hence, ‘to place confidence in, to trust,’ signifies, in this sense of the word, reliance upon, not mere credence.” (W. E. Vine, Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary, 61.) Lewis Sperry Chafer, quoting the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, affirms the following concerning faith (which is but a synonym for the verb believe): ‘In conclusion, without trespassing on the ground of other articles, we call the reader’s attention, for his Scriptural studies, to the central place of faith in Christianity, and its significance. As being, in its true idea, a reliance as simple as possible upon the word, power, love, of Another, it is precisely that which, on man’s side, adjusts him to the living and merciful presence and action [i.e. person and work] of a trusted God. In its nature, not by any mere arbitrary arrangement, it is his one possible receptive attitude, that in which he brings nothing, so that he may receive all.’ (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4 Vols. 4:148.) By definition, belief is consistent with ‘grace’ (1 Cor. 15:10-11; cf. Eph. 2:8-9). Thus it is clear that belief relies upon another, it trusts something as true, it eliminates obedience [as an added requirement], it excludes good works, it narrows the door.” (Jonathan Perreault, “Getting the Gospel Right,” Free Grace Free Speech blog, October 31, 2009.)

[5] Cf. Douglas J. Moo, Romans, p. 264; Leon Morris, Romans, p. 199; Robert H. Mounce, Romans, p. 123. Note: Wilkin seems to agree on this point. See his blog post: “Works Salvation and the New Birth, Part 3” (February 15, 2021). I discuss this in more detail in my blog post: “Are Roman Catholics Born-Again?” Free Grace Free Speech blog, February 11, 2022.

[6] Zane Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981), pp. 85-86, first brackets added.

[7] Art, comment under the post “1 Corinthians 15,” Rose’s Reasonings blog (March 28, 2008), http://rosesreasonings.blogspot.com/2008/03/1-corinthians-15.html#c5057204266597401204 (accessed 1/22/23).

[8] Bob Wilkin, “Another Look at 1 Corinthians 15:3-11,” Grace in Focus (Jan/Feb 2008).

[9] Wilkin, “JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE GOSPEL,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 18 (Autumn 2005): p. 7, emphasis his. https://faithalone.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/wilkin-1.pdf (accessed January 22, 2023).

[10] I take the view that the word “saved” in 1 Corinthians 15:2 can refer to both justification and sanctification. It has meaning and application for both justification and sanctification. Cf. S. Lewis Johnson’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:2 in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:2a, S. Lewis Johnson writes: “Ye are saved (Gr., present tense) may refer to continual salvation from the power of sin in the lives of believers, or it may refer to the day-by-day salvation of the inhabitants of Corinth as they received the message and formed part of the church of Jesus Christ.” (S. Lewis Johnson, Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, Editors, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary [Chicago: Moody Press, 1990], p. 1255, emphasis his.) Commenting on the same passage of Scripture, Dr. Charlie Bing of GraceLife ministries similarly writes: “We have to get the gospel right to be saved (from hell), but we must also get the gospel right to keep on getting saved (from sin). The deliverance God wants for us is not only from the penalty of sin (our justification), but also from the power of sin (our sanctification) and the presence of sin (our glorification). [...] The gospel that initially saves us is the same gospel that keeps saving us and the gospel that ultimately saves us - and it’s all by God’s grace!” (Charlie Bing, “You are Saved, if you Hold Fast - 1 Corinthians 15:1-2,” GraceNotes, No. 62.)

Jesus Is My Grave Robber

“O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”

~ 1 Corinthians 15:55, KJV ~

At the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago there is a museum area for visitors and passers-by to acquaint themselves with the history of the school. As a student, I frequently walked past the museum and still remember there on display a commemorative newspaper – reprinted from The World, New York, Friday, December 22, 1899 – in honor of the life of D. L. Moody. Splashed across the front page in large, bold letters were the words: “MOODY IS DEAD!” Somehow I think Moody would disagree. Notice what he says:

“Jesus Christ came into the world to destroy death, and we can say with Paul, if we will, ‘Oh death, where is thy sting?’ and we can hear a voice rolling down from heaven saying, ‘Buried in the bosom of the Son of God.’ He took death unto His own bosom. He went into the grave to conquer and overthrow it, and when He arose from the dead said, ‘Because I live, ye shall live also.’”¹

“My dear friends, if we are in Christ we are never going to die. Do you believe that? If sometime you should read that D. L. Moody, of East Northfield, is dead, don’t believe a word of it. He has gone up higher, that is all; gone out of this old clay tenement into a house that is immortal, a body that death cannot touch, that sin cannot taint, a body fashioned like unto His own glorious body.”²

Christ is risen from the dead

trampling over death by death

come awake

come awake

    come and rise up from the grave!³

ENDNOTES:

 
¹ D. L. Moody, Moody’s Latest Sermons (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1900), pp. 21-22.

 

² Ibid., p. 22.
 

³ Matt Maher, “Christ is Risen.”

Where Is Justification by Faith Alone in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11?

Bob Wilkin and others in the Grace Evangelical Society have a hard time seeing justification by faith alone in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. They believe in justification by faith alone, they just don't see it in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Personally, I think it has to do with a theological bias. Here’s why I say that: If justification by faith alone is taught in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, then Wilkin would have to admit that the saving message is there as well. That in turn would mean that Christ’s substitutionary death is part of the saving message, as well as the other facts listed by the apostle Paul in the passage. All this is in conflict with Wilkin's theology, so an easy way for him to dismiss 1 Corinthians 15 from the discussion about the saving message is to say that justification by faith alone is not found anywhere in the passage. And that’s exactly what Wilkin says: “we don't find justification by faith alone anywhere in 1 Cor. 15:3-11”.[1] Wilkin elaborates more in another article. Under the heading “Things Which Are Typically Added In When Using 1 Corinthians 15:3-11”[2], the first thing Wilkin lists is “Justification by faith alone apart from works.”[3] He says: “Try hard but you’ll not find a mention of justification by faith apart from works in this passage. You find that in Gal 2:15-16 and in Galatians 3 and Romans 3-4. But it just isn’t here. Anywhere.”[4]

Granted, the word “justification” is not in 1 Corinthians 15, but if the concept is there then that should be sufficient. On this point Wilkin agrees. He writes: “We don’t need to use the word justification, but we must preach the concept or its equivalent if we wish to preach the gospel of Paul and Jesus. ‘He who believes in Me has everlasting life’ (John 6:47) is justification by faith alone in different words.”[5]

This might surprise some Free Grace people, but Zane Hodges believed that the concept of justification by faith alone apart from works is taught in 1 Corinthians 15 – in the gospel itself! Notice what he says in this regard:

“According to Paul’s own statement, when he came to Corinth to preach, he was ‘determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified’ (1 Cor. 2:2). Later in the epistle, Paul describes his gospel as one that declared ‘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’ (15:3). [...]

     But this is precisely where preaching the cross becomes so important. Why should men trust Christ for eternal life? The gospel gives us the wonderful answer. They should do so because Jesus has bought their salvation at the cost of His own precious blood. [...] 

     On a very practical level, when I am dealing with an unsaved person, I find that if I simply tell him he only needs to believe in Christ, this usually doesn’t make sense to him. Why should it be so easy? Why are not works required? To the unregenerate American mind, it doesn’t sound reasonable.

     So I find it not only useful, but indeed essential, to explain that the Lord Jesus Christ bought our way to heaven by paying for all our sins. In recent years I have liked to emphasize that He paid for all the sins we would ever commit from the day of our birth to the day of our death. This serves to stress the completeness of the payment He made. It is usually only in the light of so perfect a payment that people can come to see the reasonableness of a salvation that is absolutely free.

     I say to people, ‘Jesus paid it all’ and there is nothing left for you to do or to pay. All you have to do is believe in Him for the free gift of everlasting life.

     One of my favorite illustrations goes like this: If a friend bought you a Rolls Royce and paid for it in full and offered it to you as a free gift, wouldn’t he be hurt, or even insulted, if you insisted on paying for it yourself? In the same way, if we try to do or pay something to go to heaven, even though Jesus paid it all, aren’t we insulting His great sacrifice and treating it as if it were not enough?

     Most unsaved people can understand that point, even if they don’t believe its true. The Savior's work on the cross thus becomes a powerful argument that He should be trusted for eternal life.

     And apart from the cross, for most modern Americans, the offer of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone, just doesn’t compute. Even after hearing it, it still may not compute. But by offering the truth of the gospel to people, we give the Holy Spirit something to work with in their hearts. And in the final analysis, it is only the Spirit of God who can sweep away the blindness of the human heart so that the glorious light of the gospel of Christ may shine into unsaved hearts.”[6] 

I understand that Hodges was a promise-only gospel advocate. Hodges makes that clear in his article. I quote these statements of his only to show that he believed the truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone is an integral part of the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15. To say it another way, Hodges clearly used 1 Corinthians 15:3ff evangelistically to explain the concept of justification by faith alone! The truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone is inherent in the great fact of the gospel that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3; cf. Isa. 53:11, NKJV; Rom. 3:21-28, 4:4-5, 5:1). Hodges understood this, and I think he explained it very well.

ENDNOTES:

[1] Wilkin, “JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE GOSPEL,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 18 (Autumn 2005): p. 13; cf. Jeremy Myers, “THE GOSPEL IS MORE THAN ‘FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST ALONE,’” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 19 (Autumn 2006): p. 48.

[2] Wilkin, “Another Look at 1 Corinthians 15:3-11,” Grace in Focus (Jan-Feb 2008), bold his. Note: Notice that Wilkin limits his discussion to 1 Cor. 15:3-11, thus conveniently excluding 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 where the apostle Paul clearly emphasizes the one condition of faith when he says: “you received” (v. 1), and “you believed” (v. 2). But even if we limit the discussion to verses 3-11, the apostle Paul again draws attention to faith alone in verse 11 when he says, “Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.”

[3] Wilkin, “Another Look at 1 Corinthians 15:3-11,” Grace in Focus (Jan-Feb 2008), italics his.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Wilkin, “JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE GOSPEL,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 18 (Autumn 2005): p. 7, emphasis his.

[6] Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Autumn 2000): pp. 10-12, ellipsis added. Cf. Hodges explanation of 1 Corinthians 15:2 from his book The Gospel Under Siege. Notice what he says: “The problem in correctly understanding this verse [1 Cor. 15:2] is caused by the English translation. A very flexible Greek verb (katecho) is translated ‘hold fast’ in the New King James Version (the AV has ‘keep in memory’). But the verb could equally well be rendered ‘take hold of’ or ‘take possession of.’ In that case it would refer to the act of appropriating the truth of the Gospel by faith. Closer examination of the Greek text suggests that this is indeed the correct understanding. The Greek word order can be represented as follows: ‘by which also you are saved, by that word I preached to you, if you take hold of it, unless you believed in vain.’ From this it appears that Paul is thinking of the saving effect of the preached word when it is duly appropriated, unless in fact that appropriation (by faith) has been in vain. What he means by believing ‘in vain’ is made clear in verses 14 and 17: ‘And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty [the AV has ‘vain’ for ‘empty’]. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins [the AV has ‘vain’ for ‘futile’].’ First Corinthians 15:2 must be read in the light of the subsequent discussion about resurrection. Paul is simply saying, in verse 2, that the Gospel he has preached to them is a saving Gospel when it is appropriated by faith, unless, after all, the resurrection is false. In that case, no salvation has occurred at all and the faith his readers had exercised was futile. But naturally Paul absolutely insists on the reality of the resurrection of Christ. He therefore does not think that the Corinthians have believed ‘in vain.’” (Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege [Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981], pp. 85-86, first brackets added.)

Zane Hodges on Biblical Repentance (1985)

I just came across a statement by Zane Hodges on biblical repentance where he agrees with the "change of mind" view of it! I always thought that he held to the "harmony with God" view, but apparently that's a more recent development. 

The following statement by Hodges on repentance is excerpted from his book Grace In Eclipse (Redencion Viva, 1985), page 113. This was Hodges’ view of repentance before he changed it in 1989 with the publication of his book Absolutely Free! Back in 1985, Hodges wrote the following about biblical repentance and I couldn’t agree with it more! Notice what he says: “The primary New Testament words for repentance (verb, metanoeō; noun, metanoia) signify simply a change of mind. They do not have the sense of the English word for repentance which almost always suggests turning from sin, with overtones of sorrow and contrition. Every act of saving faith necessarily involves some change of mind since one cannot move from unbelief to faith without altering one’s perspective. In that sense ‘repentance’ is always involved in trusting Christ. But the notion that one must decide to abandon his sin in order to be saved is actually based on reading the English meaning of ‘repentance’ into some New Testament texts. For valuable discussions of this subject, see Richard A. Seymour, All About Repentance (Hollywood, FL: Harvest House Publishers, 1974); and Robert Nicholas Wilkin, Repentance as a Condition for Salvation in the New Testament (unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1985).”[1]

Reference:

[1] Zane C. Hodges, Grace In Eclipse (Redencion Viva, 1985), p. 113, endnote 5. Please note: Robert N. Wilkin has since renounced his "change of mind" view of repentance. Following Hodges, he now takes the "harmony with God" view instead.

Does Luke 24:47 Support the Lordship View of Repentance?

The other day I received an email from a reader who asked me about Luke 24:47 as it relates to the meaning of repentance. With his permission I have reproduced his question below, along with my response.[1] I trust that it will be a blessing to other people who may also have the same or a similar question. The reader writes the following:

Hello Jonathan, [....]

I had recently come across (a rather abrasive) pro-Lordship blog which advocated very strongly for a Lordship definition of repentance. The author of the blog was, as is sometimes usual with Lordship advocates, rather inconsistent with the definition of repentance calling it a change of mind while simultaneously stating it is a turn of sin. The author strongly promoted the idea of repenting or turning from specific sins in order to be saved, a topic you and I had discussed at length here through email. However his reasoning behind this view was not an incorrect definition of repentance or a misunderstanding in the ordo salutis, but was the end of Luke in chapter 24, verse 47 when the Lord appears to the disciples after His resurrection:

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things." (Luke 24:45-48)

The author proceeded to state:

"So much for that God only tells us to repent of your sins after you are saved which is a very OUT OF CONTEXT doctrine like that rather ridiculous ‘Pisseth Against the Wall’ sermon (a sermon done by Steven Anderson which was criticized by the author in a different blog post). In fact, I really see no reason why a person would come to Christ if they even haven't changed their minds about their sins? Biblical repentance for sinners calls them to repent of their sins. John 3:19-20 is clear that unrepentant sinners will NEVER admit their sins and come to Christ. They want to continue sinning, they love darkness which can invalidate taking John 3:16 out of context. As said, repenting of your sins is NOT works salvation but rather, unless a person repents of their sins they will NEVER receive the free gift of salvation because they know salvation will change their lives in God's image."

Despite his maybe caustic tone, I considered his usage of the passage and understood why he would use it for his position, but then was curious about the sentence structure of Luke 24:47. He used what I believe was the KJV or NKJV translation of Luke 24:47, which says "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name" instead of the "repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name" that is in the ESV or the "repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name" that is in the NIV. What I am curious about is whether the accurate meaning of this verse is "repentance for the forgiveness of sins" or "repentance of sins and the forgiveness of sins". I used the Bible Hub website which you had recommended to me for looking at the Greek of 1 John 3, but being that the direct translation is in the English language the ambiguity is still there. I saw that the Grace Evangelical Society had an article on this verse by Bob Wilkin, but I wasn't really able to find a good answer and knowing Wilkin's unfortunate view on repentance I chose not to look further on the GES website. Do you know what the original Greek is saying here?

For my response I wrote back:

Hi ________,

Your question on Luke 24:47 is a good one. My first thought is that Luke 24:47 doesn't say what the LS proponent interprets it to mean. The LS proponent wants Luke 24:47 to mean "repent of your sins" / "repent of their sins". Well, that's not what the verse says, and I don't believe that's what it means either. As to what the verse says (as you mentioned) the English translations seem to fall into either one of two categories: a.) "repentance and forgiveness of sins" or b.) "repentance for the forgiveness of sins". Apparently most of the Greek manuscripts use the word eis ("unto, for, with reference to"), but some apparently use the word kai ("and") instead. I looked up Luke 24:47 in quite a few Bible commentaries and they didn't really answer the question that you asked. But The Theological Wordbook (a Free Grace resource edited by Charles Swindoll, John Walvoord, and other Free Grace advocates) hints at the answer, when it says the following in the entry on "Repentance":

"Jesus spoke about repentance in relation to several subjects: the kingdom (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15); judgment (Matt. 11:20-21; 12:41; Luke 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5); faith (Mark 1:15); forgiveness of sins by unbelievers (Luke 5:32; 24:47); and forgiveness of believers’ sins (17:3-4). The context of each of these verses shows why a change was necessary." (The Theological Wordbook, p. 297, emphasis added.)

So this supports what I said above, namely that Jesus is not saying people have to "repent of their sins," but rather that we are to preach repentance "with reference to" or "in relation to" the forgiveness of sins. In other words, repentance and forgiveness are related in some way, but how? From what I've learned in Greek (as taught by Bill Mounce), the word eis usually denotes movement into or unto something (see Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, 4th Edition, p. 419), in this case the forgiveness of sins. This would make the forgiveness of sins the result of repentance. Even if we take a different interpretation and say that Jesus really does mean that "you all need to repent of your sins," it still doesn't disprove Free Grace theology because in that case I would understand Jesus to be saying that people need to repent (change their minds) specifically about their sin of unbelief in Christ (see John 16:8-9). So really Free Grace can accept either view. But getting back to the first interpretation that I presented, I like how Charlie Bing summarizes it when he writes the following in the "Summary and Conclusions" section of his book Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response. Under the heading "Repentance and Salvation," Dr. Bing states:

"Key Bible passages considered did not substantiate the Lordship understanding of repentance. An evaluation of the passages that concern the offer of salvation by John the Baptist (Matt 3:2, 11; Mark 1:4/Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24), Jesus Christ (Matt 4:17/Mark 1:15; Matt 11:20-21/Luke 10:13; Matt 9:13/Mark 2:17/Luke 5:32; Matt 12:41/Luke 11:32; Luke 13:3, 5; Luke 15; 16:30; 24:47), and the Apostles (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 14:15 [with 1 Thess 1:9]; 17:30; 20:21) showed that metanoeō should be taken in its basic sense of 'change the mind.' In these passages, that about which the mind changed was not always sin or sins, but could also be God or one's opinion about Jesus Christ. Turning from sins is more accurately a result of repentance in some of the passages and should not be confused with repentance itself." (Charles Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, p. 166 in the first edition.)

So in Luke 24:47, Jesus could be saying: a.) that the lost need to change their minds about their sins in the sense that people must come to admit that they are sinners (cf. Rom. 3:10, 3:23; 1 Cor. 15:3; etc.), and related to this is b.) that the lost need to change their minds about their sin of unbelief in Christ (cf. Jn. 16:8-9; Acts 16:30-31), and/or Jesus could also be saying c.) that repentance results in the forgiveness of sins. Those are three ways of interpreting Luke 24:47 that are consistent with traditional Free Grace theology.

Anyway, I hope I answered your question. That's how I understand Luke 24:47. God Bless

Sincerely in Christ,

Jonathan

ENDNOTE:

[1] I have slightly edited my response for the sake of clarity; mostly I just added more Bible verses.

E. J. Pace Christian Cartoon

Illustration by E. J. PACE. The Sunday School Times, March 28, 1925.