Is Repentance Sorrow for Sin? 10 Reasons Why It Is Not

10 Reasons Why Repentance Is Not Sorrow for Sin

1. If repentance is sorrow for sin, then God is a sinner because God repents! See Genesis 6:6; Jeremiah 18:9-10; Amos 7:3, 7:6; Jonah 3:10. Dr. Charlie Bing affirms that “when the Greek translators in the Septuagint version, about three hundred years before Christ, . . . when they came to the Old Testament and translated some of these passages about God changing His mind, they used the word metanoia for God. And the old King James Version continues to use the word, ‘God repented’. So it can’t be turning from sins because God doesn’t sin! It just shows you how they understood that word.”[1] 

2. If repentance means sorrow for sin, then Moses speaks tautologically in Genesis 6:6, “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Gen. 6:6, KJV). In the Latin, from Augustine’s City of God, this verse is translated in the sense of a change of mind, not sorrow: “Et cogitavit Deus, quia fecit hominem super terram, et recogitavit,” which can be translated: “And God considered that He had made man on the earth, and He reconsidered”.[2] The comment by Augustine on Genesis 6:6 is worth noting when he says, “What is written in certain Latin codices, And God repented, and said, I will destroy man whom I have made from the face of the earth; in Greek we find διενοήθη [Gen. 6:6, LXX], which is said to signify that he thought more than repented: which word some Latin codices have also.”[3] Commenting on Augustine’s rendering of Genesis 6:6, Erasmus affirms: “And hence we read, I repent having made man, Augustine, City of God, book 15, chapter 24, instead of repented read reflected upon [or thought over], according to the reliable oldest codex.”[4]

3. If repentance is sorrow for sin, then Paul speaks tautologically in 2 Corinthians 7:10, “for godly sorrow worketh repentance” (2 Cor. 7:10, KJV). In other words, if repentance is sorrow for sin, or godly sorrow (as some suppose), then Paul would be needlessly repeating himself by saying, “for godly sorrow worketh godly sorrow”! J. Oswald Jackson points out this dilemma in his book Repentance: Or The Change of Mind Necessary To Salvation Considered. Commenting on 2 Corinthians 7:9-10, Jackson says, “suppose that ‘repentance’ were to be viewed as synonymous with ‘godly sorrow,’ as it has most unwarrantably been considered by some. How would the Apostle’s argument then stand? He would then be declaring—‘godly sorrow worketh godly sorrow;’ ‘repentance worketh repentance,’ which would be a most unmeaning declaration,—tautology indeed. Therefore we must be sure that the Apostle intends to teach that ‘repentance,’ whatever it be, is something totally distinct from ‘godly sorrow,’ or else he would never say godly sorrow WORKETH repentance.”[5] Richard A. Seymour sums up the point well when he writes the following in his book All About Repentance: “The problem with taking a contemporary English definition of repentance and trying to make it what the Bible means by repentance—especially in relation to salvation—is that it just doesn’t fit. Though it is true that often people will repent, and with their repentance feel grief or sorrow, it is not true that that grief or sorrow is the same as repentance. Scripture says that ‘Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation....’ Scripture does not say that ‘Godly sorrow is repentance.’”[6]

4. If repentance is sorrow for sin, then unbelievers can have “godly sorrow” (2 Cor. 7:10) because Paul says that “godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation”. Critiquing this view of repentance, G. Michael Cocoris states, “Repentance is not being sorry for sin. This is the popular idea of repentance. Some even insist on tears. Robert Smith said, ‘True repentance has a double aspect. It looks upon things past with a weeping eye, and upon the future with a watchful eye.’ There is even a tradition that the lily sprang from the repentant tears of Eve as she went forth from paradise. Most do not carry the idea of remorse that far, but many do feel that repentance is being sorry for sin, and that is simply not the case.”[7] To cite more examples of those who say that repentance is sorrow for sin and even “godly sorrow,” a proponent of this view of repentance says the following: “God requires one to give up every known sin that one has been practicing, and to do so with a godly sorrow. You who are unsaved have sinned against God; in order to get saved you must repent with godly sorrow.”[8] R. L. Dabney, in his Systematic Theology, says that “Godly sorrow for sin must be presupposed or implied in the first actings of faith, because faith embraces Christ as a Saviour from sin.”[9] Louis Berkhof similarly states, “True conversion is born of godly sorrow, and issues in a life of devotion to God, II Cor. 7:10.”[10] However, the Bible makes it clear that the unsaved are not godly; they are “ungodly” (see Romans 4:5, 5:6). In context, the “salvation” that Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians 7:10 is in reference to believers, not unbelievers. Paul is not talking about salvation from hell, but being saved from the power of sin in the Christian life (cf. Phil. 2:12-13; 2 Thess. 2:13). In 2 Corinthians 7:10, Paul is speaking of second tense salvation, that is, Christian sanctification.[11] Commenting on 2 Corinthians 7:10, G. Michael Cocoris affirms: “The Greek word rendered ‘salvation’ means ‘deliverance.’ It is a flexible term which can refer to deliverance from sickness, difficulties, physical death and condemnation (Lk. 3:48; Acts 27:31; 2 Cor. 1:6; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 1:19). In this case it refers to deliverance from God’s discipline (Wilkin, dissertation, p. 129).”[12] Roger Post, in his excellent dissertation on repentance, has well said: “Though 2 Corinthians 7:8-11 is frequently used to demonstrate that sorrow is necessary for repentance and thus for regeneration, it must be remembered that the sorrow which produced repentance in that case did not involve the unregenerate, but the ‘saints’ of Corinth.”[13]

5. Kittel says that the Greek word metanoia “approximates” the Hebrew word shub.[14] It is noteworthy, then, that the Hebrew word shub means “to turn” not “to sorrow”. Arguing for the “change of mind” definition of repentance (Gr. metanoia), G. Michael Cocoris affirms: “Actually, the Hebrew word shub means ‘to turn back, return’ (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, p. 996).”[15] If someone says that repentance includes sorrow, go back to the meaning of the word shub: to turn around. What does sorrow have to do with that? A person can turn around without having sorrow. For example, the unbeliever needs to turn from a works gospel to the fact that the work has been done by someone else – the finished work of Jesus Christ! Turn from self to the Savior! Lewis Sperry Chafer has well said: “It is true that repentance can very well be required as a condition of salvation, but then only because the change of mind which it is has been involved when turning from every other confidence to the one needful trust in Christ. Such turning about, of course, cannot be achieved without a change of mind. This vital newness of mind [repentance] is a part of believing, after all, and therefore it may be and is used as a synonym for believing at times”.[16]

6. Metanoia also translates the Hebrew word nacham, but nacham means to be eased or to be comforted, not necessarily “to be sorrowful”.[17] For more information see my blog post titled: “‘Free Grace’ Theology: 7 Ways Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance”.

7. The English word repentance (which does tend to convey the idea of sorrow) is not the best translation of the Greek word metanoia. For more information, see my blog post titled: “Biblical Repentance: Lost in Translation?”

8. Sorrow leads to repentance; thus sorrow is to be distinguished from repentance. The great reformer Martin Luther has well said: “Also Lactantius [in] book 6 of his Institutes informs [us], that poenitentia [repentance] in Greek is called Metanoia, that is resipiscentia. By no means therefore from use in sacred Scripture is repentance called sorrow, but a change of mind and [of one’s own] judgment, and to repent is to be wise after an error, and to install a mind for right living.’”[18] Commenting on 2 Corinthians 7:8, the NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson notes that the Greek verb metanoeō means “to change one’s mind (not to be sorry at all).”[19]

9. The early Christians of the first century used the word metanoia in the sense of “change your mind” not “be sorry” (cf. The Shepherd of Hermas; The Martyrdom of Polycarp, etc.). For more information, see my blog post titled: “The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians”.

10. Sorrow is an emotion, metanoia is a decision (a “change of mind”). Sorrow may lead to and even accompany repentance (cf. 2 Cor. 7:9-10), but sorrow and repentance are two different things.[20] Even the famous English theologian Jeremy Taylor saw a distinction between sorrow and repentance when he wrote that “metanoia...does not properly signify the sorrow for having done amiss, but something that is nobler than it, but brought in at the gate of sorrow.” Taylor goes on to say in reference to 2 Corinthians 7:10, “Sorrow may go before this [repentance], but dwells not with it, according to that of St. Chrysostom; ‘Medicinae hic locus, non judicii; non poenas sed peccatorum remissionem poenitentia tribuit.’ Metanoia is the word. ‘Repentance brings not pains, but pardon with it; for this is the place of medicine and remedy, not of [God’s] judgment or condemnation:’ meaning, that this repentance is wholly salutary, as tending to reformation and amendment.’”[21]


ENDNOTES:

[1] Charlie Bing, “What is Repentance?” Free Grace Notes, YouTube video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9hEh6J6NS8 (accessed February 18, 2023).

[2] See Augustine, City of God Against the Pagans, book 15, chapter 24. Note: This translation is from the Loeb Classical Library edition of Augustine’s City of God, 7 Vols., Vol. 4, p. 563. See the following link on the archive.org website: https://archive.org/details/cityofgodagainst0000augu/page/562/mode/2up (accessed February 18, 2023).

[3] Augustine of Hippo, Locutiones de Genesi, Book 1, comment on Genesis 6:6, https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=Fathers-OR/PL.034.html;chunk.id=00001289 (accessed Feb. 18, 2023). Translated from the Latin by Google Translate. Editor’s note: William Tyndale says in his book The Obedience of a Christian Man, “that St Augustine...is the best, or one of the best, that ever wrote upon the scripture”. Similarly, J. Vernon McGee has well said: “Augustine is one of the great men who has affected the church and the world. Both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism quote him to sustain their positions.” (McGee, Witnesses: After He Died They Saw Him Alive, p. 13.)

[4] Desiderius Erasmus, Annotations on the New Testament, note on Matthew 3:2.

[5] J. Oswald Jackson, Repentance: Or The Change of Mind Necessary To Salvation Considered (London: 1845), pp. 10-11, emphasis his.

[6] Richard A. Seymour, All About Repentance (Hollywood, FL: Harvest House Publishers, 1974), pp. 64-65, emphasis and ellipsis his.

[7] G. Michael Cocoris, Evangelism: A Biblical Approach (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), p. 66. Cocoris also makes a good point when he goes on to say, “One other observation: sorrow does not have to precede repentance. Paul says the goodness of God can also lead to repentance (Rom. 2:4).” (Ibid., p. 67.)

[8] Wm. F. Chapel, “Repentance”. Soul-Stirring Sermons (Anderson, IN: Gospel Trumpet Company, 1915), p. 126.

[9] Robert L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985), p. 657. Note: This book was first published in 1871.

[10] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1963), p. 483. Note: This book was originally published in 1939.

[11] Commenting on the New Testament word translated “repent” in the Authorized Version, Dr. Scofield writes: “Repentance is the trans. of a Gr. word (metanoia—metanoeo) meaning, ‘to have another mind,’ ‘to change the mind,’ and is used in the N.T. to indicate a change of mind in respect of sin, of God, and of self. This change of mind may, especially in the case of Christians who have fallen into sin, be preceded by sorrow (2 Cor. 7.8-11), but sorrow for sin, though it may ‘work’ repentance, is not repentance.” (C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1174, note on Acts 17:30.) 

[12] G. Michael Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2010), p. 57.

[13] Roger E. Post, “The Meaning of the Words Translated ‘Repent’ and ‘Repentance’ in the New Testament” (Master’s Thesis, Wheaton College, 1972), p. 34.

[14] Johannes Behm, “metanoeō, metanoia.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, vol. 4, pp. 989-990. For more information, see my blog post titled: “The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians”. See under the heading: “Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1967, 1985)”.

[15] G. Michael Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2010), p. 89. See Appendix 3: “The Hebrew Word for Turn” (pp. 89-90). Also see The Theological Wordbook, edited by Charles R. Swindoll (Nashville: Word Publishing, 2000), under the heading “Repentance” (p. 297), where it says: “The primary Hebrew word that describes change, and which is translated ‘repentance’ in some instances, is [shub], ‘to turn, return,’ used well over a thousand times. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) usually translated shub by the Greek word epistrephō, ‘to turn about.’” Cocoris makes the point more explicit when he says, “The fatal flaw in the assumption that the Hebrew word shub is equivalent to the Greek word for repent is that the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, ‘never’ uses shub to translate ‘repent’! In the Septuagint the Greek words that are ‘always’ used for shub are epistrephō and apostrephō (Kittel, vol. 4, p. 989).” (Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible, pp. 89-90.) So notice the contrast: the Hebrew word shub is sometimes translated into English as "repentance," but in the Septuagint, shub is never translated as metanoia. This highlights at least two things quite clearly: 1) the Hebrew word shub and the Greek word metanoia are not equivalent, and 2) our English word "repentance" is really not the best translation of the Greek word metanoia.

[16] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 7, p. 265, italics his.

[17] See the summary on “Repentance” in the Old Testament in The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), p. 972, note on Zechariah 8:14. Also see Charles C. Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, 2nd GraceLife Edition (Xulon Press, 2010), p. 69, footnote 40.

[18] For more information see my blog post: “The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians”.

[19] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1931), vol. 4, p. 240, comment on 2 Corinthians 7:8.

[20] Cf. J. Hampton Keathley, ABCs for Christian Growth, 5th Edition, p. 449; G. Michael Cocoris, Evangelism: A Biblical Approach, p. 66; G. Michael Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible, unpublished manuscript, p. 9.

[21] Jeremy Taylor, The Nature of Repentance, chapter 2, section 2. Editor’s note: Unfortunately, Taylor at times seems to confuse repentance with the fruits of repentance.

Bible Interpretation 101: "The Analogy of Faith"

The Analogy of the Faith Principle of Interpretation

“One of the most basic principles of interpretation is the ‘analogy of faith.’ This principle says that unclear passages should be understood in light of clear ones, not the other way around. The difficult passages need to be explained in harmony with clear ones. In other words, if a passage has two or more possible interpretations, and only one fits well with the Scriptures as a whole, the Bible student is bound to select the interpretation which is in harmony with the rest of biblical revelation. Thus, though a passage may have two possible interpretations in isolation from other passages, when placed alongside clear, unambiguous passages, only one interpretation exists.”[1]

Reference:

[1] J. Hampton Keathley, III, "The Stewardship of God's Truth Through Evangelism (Part 3)" (July 1, 2004), bible.org website.

Book Review: Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society

Overall I think this is a helpful book and a good resource in regards to the main topic of the book, although I would be quick to add that I don’t agree with everything Wilson says; there are some things he says that I disagree with, such as his belief that faith plus works for justification (although wrong) is nonetheless still a saving message [!] and his statement on page 10 that “The historical evidence for early Christians who believed and taught ‘faith alone’ [for justification] without any works is non-existent.” But clearly the apostle Paul taught exactly this doctrine when he penned the epistle to the Romans in, say, 57 or 58 AD (see Romans chapters 1-5). Are Paul and the other apostles not “early Christians”?! The Bible says, “The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch” (Acts 11:26). In regards to the main topic of the book, Wilson provides some interesting and helpful background information as to how Zane Hodges arrived at his novel view on the gospel. Wilson shows how the catalyst or impetus for Hodges changing his view on the gospel was the 1988 publication of John MacArthur’s book The Gospel According to Jesus. Wilson does a good job comparing Hodges’ “Godless-Saviorless Gospel” to what the Bible actually teaches, from the Gospel of John in particular. In so doing, Wilson demonstrates how Hodges’ new mini-gospel is patently unbiblical. Wilson points out how, although the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) still promotes Hodges’ novel gospel to this day, ironically they leave out about half of what Hodges’ required for eternal life: belief in a bodily resurrection! The GES does not require people to believe this for salvation, although Hodges did require it. Wilson also effectively demonstrates how, in John 11:25-27 (the main GES proof-text for Hodges’ novel gospel), Martha did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Lazarus! And so how does this passage support the GES requirement for believing in Jesus for the promise of eternal life (which they define as eternal security) and bodily resurrection if Martha didn’t believe all that?! The GES is reading the theology of Zane Hodges into the text to arrive at their desired conclusion of the promise-only gospel. Wilson goes on to detail how former GES leaders attempted to restore Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin (the founder of GES and a disciple of Hodges) but to no avail, and as a result, how the GES left the Free Grace movement. Wilson’s concluding chapter is also very strong, and quite possibly one of the best parts of the book.

One drawback of the book however (at least from a Free Grace perspective), is that amazingly, Wilson promotes a faith plus works gospel! For example, Wilson says, “[No Scripture ever states] a person must believe in faith alone (apart from works) in order to be justified.” (p. 11.) However, isn’t this precisely what the apostle Paul preached to the unsaved Galatians in Antioch of Pisidia in Acts 13:38-41? Commenting on Paul’s words in Acts 13:38-39, F. F. Bruce affirms that “quite certainly they mean that believers in Christ are completely justified (‘justified from all things’)—something which Moses’ law could never achieve for anyone. In other words, Moses’ law does not justify; faith in Christ does.” Bruce goes on to say, “Paul in this peroration is not making partial but total claims for the efficacy of the gospel over against the law.” (Bruce, The Book of Acts, Revised Edition, pp. 262-263.) So Paul is saying that it’s one or the other: “the gospel over against the law” (to quote Bruce), not both/and! And in response to Wilson, the Apostle Paul did say that a person must believe it, or they will “perish” (see Acts 13:41). Wilson goes on to say, “But where does Scripture require that a person believe in imputed righteousness apart from works to become a Christian?” (p. 52.) Here Wilson almost sounds like a Roman Catholic apologist! Sadly, Wilson is promoting the Roman Catholic dogma of justification by faith plus works. (For more information see: John Ankerberg, Fast Facts on Roman Catholicism, pp. 35-39.) It’s unfortunate that this question is actually coming from a Free Grace advocate. But what does the Scripture say? Take, for example, Acts 4:12. Peter’s sermon to the religious leaders of his day is significant in regards to Wilson’s question. Notice what Peter says in Acts 4:12: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” This is Peter’s sermon to religious unbelievers, and he’s telling them that they cannot be saved by Christ plus their good works, but by Christ alone! Under the heading, “Adding To The Gospel”, Lance B. Latham (a well known Free Grace advocate and one of the founders of New Tribes Mission) affirms: “Adding any condition to Christ’s being crucified and risen would destroy the truth of the gospel. The great center of the truth of the gospel is that God accepts us just as we are once we believe that JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD, and rest our hope in the fact that God paid the price in full for our sins when Jesus paid the full price at Calvary. God will allow nothing added to Calvary as our hope! ‘Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved’ (Acts 4:12). NO! Confucius will not do, nor Mohammed, nor Buddha, nor any other!” (Latham, The Two Gospels, p. 99, emphasis his.) Curtis Hutson similarly states: “If we try to add anything to what Jesus has done, no matter how good the addition may be, we are saying, ‘I’m not satisfied with the payment Jesus made.’ It is not the death of Jesus Christ on the cross—plus baptism—that saves. It is Jesus alone. Acts 4:12 says, ‘Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.’ If I am trusting Christ—plus baptism—then I am not satisfied with the payment Jesus made for my sins. [...] I must trust Jesus Christ completely—Him alone and nothing else.” (Hutson, Salvation Crystal Clear, Vol. 2, pp. 79-80.) Wilson goes on in his book to say that it is “misrepresentation” to label “faith in Christ plus works as ‘works salvation’....It is faith (plus works) salvation.” 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).” (p. 202.) 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.” (p. 106.) 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 is a key verse highlighting Wilson’s false teaching on the gospel. William MacDonald explains 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).” (William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary, p. 1918, emphasis his.)

Later in his book Wilson goes on to say: “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.” (p. 134.) According to Wilson, a faith plus works gospel is still a saving message! But in light of the apostle Paul’s stern 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).” (C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1241.)

Wilson goes on to summarize by saying, “Faith alone still saves, regardless of additions.” (p. 205.) But Wilson doesn’t seem to understand that it’s not “faith alone” if you add anything to it! 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.” (Kenneth S. Wuest, Galatians in the Greek New Testament, p. 131.)

However, I do agree with Wilson’s critique of the GES gospel, which I similarly reject. Thus, I do recommend this aspect of Wilson’s book, but for reference only.

Strengths of Wilson’s book:

1. It provides helpful background information on the promise-only gospel.

2. It details how Zane Hodges changed his gospel over time.

3. It shows how Hodges’ new “Godless-Saviorless” gospel is unbiblical.

4. It points out how Bob Wilkin is not the spokesman for the Free Grace Movement at large.

5. It describes how the majority of those in the FG movement reject the Hodges/Wilkin GES gospel.

Weaknesses of Wilson’s book:

1. Wilson argues that faith plus works is a saving message, based on historical precedent: “from AD 100 to 1530” (see pp. 10-11, 52, 133-134, 202-203, 205).

2. Wilson’s explanation of assurance not being of the essence of saving faith (pp. 123-124) is insufficient and does not adequately explain Hebrews 11:1, nor the views of the Reformers on the subject.

3. Wilson surmises that Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Calvinists, “and all other Christian groups who require good works [for salvation]” (p. 10) are nonetheless brothers in Christ and he sees no problem fellowshipping with them (p. 152). But what about the Reformed doctrine of “Lordship Salvation”? H. A. Ironside, Charles Ryrie, and other Free Grace expositors called it “a false gospel” (Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life, p. 170), and J. Vernon McGee said it’s heresy! Sadly, Wilson is giving “the right hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9) to those who preach a false gospel.

4. Wilson places an undue emphasis on historical precedent and theological speculation related to what people supposedly believed or didn’t believe “from AD 100 to about 1530” (p. 168 and elsewhere), with a corresponding under emphasis on Scripture alone and the teachings of the Apostles (before AD 100). Wilson needs to go back to the Bible! What do the Scriptures say? See “Note 1” (below) for more information.

5. The book’s three appendixes were overly pedantic, confusing, and I also found them to be somewhat off-topic from the main point of the book, which is the heresy of the GES gospel. My specific thoughts on Appendixes A, B, and C are as follows:

A. In Appendix A, titled “The Niemelä Fallacy” (pp. 167-174), Wilson appears to fault Niemelä for going back to the Bible to find his answer in regards to the GES view of how a person became a Christian prior to the Protestant Reformation. (Niemelä appeals to Isaiah 55:1 and Romans 10:8 for support; cf. Rom. 10:17.) Granted, Niemelä arrives at the wrong conclusion, but at least he goes back to the Bible! Niemelä should not be faulted for going back to the Bible. As the apostle Paul says, “For what saith the Scripture?” (Rom. 4:3; cf. Gal. 4:30). By way of contrast, Wilson relies on David Anderson’s historical precedent argument (i.e. the “1400 years without a Christian” scenario) related to what people supposedly believed “from A.D. 100 to A.D. 1500” (pp. 167-169). The irony is that Wilson is still right (I’m referring specifically to “The Niemelä Fallacy”), but he’s right in spite of his historical precedent argument and not because of it. See “Note 2” (below) for more information.

B. Appendix B, titled “The GES Actual Universal Propitiation Heresy” (pp. 175-193), is similarly shaky. For one thing, there are a plethora of partial quotes from Zane Hodges, which makes it a confusing and tedious read. At times, Wilson appears to “put words in Hodges’ mouth,” and one wonders if Wilson is accurately portraying Hodges’ view or just creating a straw man argument? Wilson labels Hodges’ view “The GES Actual Universal Propitiation Heresy,” but he (Wilson) does not clearly explain it. Nor is his rebuttal convincing. Rather, Wilson comes across like he’s on a witch hunt to find another heresy to pin on the tail of the donkey (the donkey being Zane Hodges). Granted, Hodges’ view of propitiation is heresy (at least according to Wilson), but it’s not the heresy Wilson’s book is about. Thus, Appendix B seems to be somewhat off-topic from the main point of the book.

C. Appendix C is another tedious read related to “Acts 15 and Wilkin’s Errors in Logic”. It’s also the response to Wilkin that Wilson claimed he wouldn’t write! In the conclusion to the first edition of his book (published in 2020), Wilson stated that he would not respond to Wilkin should Wilkin reply. Wilson wrote: “There will be a response from Wilkin and his GES. But I have no intention of writing a rejoinder and continuing an unproductive fifteen-year theological debate with a heretical group. I will not respond.” (p. 163.) But Wilson did respond! Wilson republished his book in 2021, adding Appendix C responding to Wilkin! Wilson explains by saying, “After reading this book exposing his heresy, he [Wilkin] wrote blogs trying to defend his views. This revised edition with Appendix C exposes his errors in exegesis and logic.” (p. 195.) Wilson goes on to say, “Wilkin’s heresy forces him to constantly commit errors. He sent an email informing me that he was reading this book. Therefore, this revision with Appendix C was added to address his early blog responses.” (p. 208.) The point is: Wilson initially said that he wouldn’t respond and then he did. By going back on his word, Wilson comes across as “a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways” (James 1:8).

* * * 

Note 1: Wilson’s “1400 years without a Christian” scenario is theological speculation.

Wilson’s historical precedent argument is very weak from a biblical perspective, because it changes the question from “What does the Bible say?” to “What did people supposedly believe from AD 100 to about 1530?” My first question in response to Mr. Wilson would be, “What about what people believed before AD 100? That’s when the New Testament was written! As the apostle Paul says, “But what does the Scripture say?” (Not, “What does church history from AD 100 to 1530 say?” but rather, What does the Bible say?) I would also like to ask Mr. Wilson, “Are we now measuring the yardstick by the cloth?” Notice what William Tyndale says in this regard: “No, they say, the Scripture is so hard, that you could never understand it except by the doctors. That is, I must measure the yardstick by the cloth. Here are twenty cloths of diverse lengths and of various breadths: how shall I be sure of the length of the yardstick by them? I suppose, rather, I must be first sure of the length of the yardstick, and thereby measure and judge the cloths. If I must first believe the doctor, then the doctor is true first, and the truth of the Scripture depends of his truth; and so the truth of God springs from the truth of man. Thus Antichrist turns the roots of the trees upward. What is the cause that we damn some of Origen’s works, and allow others? How do we know that some is heresy and some is not? By the Scripture, I believe. How do we know that St. Augustine (which is the best, or one of the best, that ever wrote about the Scripture) wrote many things that are amiss at the beginning, as many other doctors do? Truly, by the Scriptures – as he himself well-perceived afterward, when he looked more diligently at them, and revoked many things. He wrote of many things which he did not understand when he was newly converted, before he had thoroughly seen the Scriptures; and when he followed the opinions of Plato, and the common persuasions of man’s wisdom that were then famous.” (William Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man, published in the year 1528.) 

In describing the “1400 years without a Christian” scenario in his article “Is Belief in Eternal Security Necessary for Justification?” (CTSJ 13, Spring 2008), David Anderson appeals to the words of Jesus when He said, “I will build My church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). In light of this statement by Jesus, how could there (supposedly) have been “1400 years without a Christian”? (That is, if we accept the premise that no one became a Christian by faith alone apart from works “from A.D. 100 to A.D. 1500.”) But Matthew 16:18 must be understood in light of the whole counsel of God’s Word. Yes, Christ said, “I will build My church” (Matt. 16:18), but He also said to the church in Sardis that they were dead! “I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God” (Rev. 3:1-2). So Jesus is saying that the church here is basically “dead”, or at least dormant. Commenting on Christ’s messages to the seven churches in Revelation chapters 2-3, Dr. Scofield in his reference Bible says that the messages are “prophetic, as disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the church from, say, A.D. 96 to the end.” Dr. Scofield goes on to say, “It is incredible that in a prophecy covering the church period there should be no such foreview. These messages must contain that foreview if it is in the book at all, for the church does not appear after [Rev.] 3.22. Again, these messages by their very terms go beyond the local assemblies mentioned. Most conclusively of all, these messages do present an exact foreview of the spiritual history of the church, and in this precise order. Ephesus gives the general state at the date of the writing; Smyrna, the period of the great persecutions; Pergamos, the church settled down in the world, ‘where Satan’s throne is,’ after the conversion of Constantine, say, A.D. 316. Thyatira is the Papacy, developed out of the Pergamos state: Balaamism (worldliness) and Nicolaitanism (priestly assumption) having conquered. As Jezebel brought idolatry into Israel, so Romanism weds Christian doctrine to pagan ceremonies. Sardis is the Protestant Reformation, whose works were not ‘fulfilled.’ Philadelphia is whatever bears clear testimony to the Word and the Name in the time of self-satisfied profession represented by Laodicea.” (Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible, pp. 1331-1332, emphasis his.) If this is true, we should not be surprised if we see the truth of “justification by faith alone apart from works” die out in the written records of that time or at least become dormant during these times in church history. Do we believe the words of Jesus that the church was “dead” (Rev. 3:1) and they needed to “Wake up” (Rev. 3:2, ESV)? It would be wrong to assume that no one got saved during the “Dark Ages” of Church history (John Niemelä is correct to point out that God’s Word will not return void, Isa. 55:11; cf. Rom. 10:17), but in many ways the Church’s candle went out! Commenting on Revelation 2:5, J. Vernon McGee has well said, “My friend, Christ is still watching the lamps, and He doesn’t mind trimming the wicks or even using the snuffer when they refuse to give light.” (McGee, Thru the Bible, Vol. 5, p. 903.) Furthermore, if we follow Wilson’s line of reasoning of arriving at Bible doctrine based on historical precedent, then we should all be preaching baptismal regeneration because that’s what people predominantly believed was the means of salvation during that time (AD 100 - 1530). But this is where it especially helps to go back to the Bible, because in the NT, the apostle Paul makes it clear that water baptism was not part of the gospel he preached (1 Cor. 1:17; cf. Rom. 1:16-17), and thus baptismal regeneration is not a valid means of salvation.

Note 2: Additional thoughts on Appendix A, “The Niemelä Fallacy”.

In Appendix A, Wilson discusses what he calls “The Niemelä Fallacy”. Wilson’s line of reasoning follows David Anderson’s “1400 years without a Christian” argument about what people supposedly believed for salvation “from AD 100 to about 1530.” But in reality, Anderson’s argument is nothing more than theological speculation, or more specifically, an argument from silence. Anderson says, “from A.D. 100 to A.D. 1500….we have no written record of anyone teaching [such and such]” (p. 169). From this, what Wilson argues is that since there is no evidence of anyone teaching justification by faith alone apart from works between the years AD 100 to about 1530 (when Luther rediscovered the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith alone), then a “faith plus works” gospel must also be a saving message since all those people couldn’t be wrong. Really? But what do the Scriptures say? The Bible says, “Let God be true and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). And what did Jesus say about it? “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matt. 7:13-14, NASB 1995, cf; Jn. 14:6). Elsewhere, Christ said to the church in Sardis, “you are dead. Wake up!” (Rev. 3:1-2, NIV). Personally, I’d rather side with Jesus than resort to theological speculation! In reality, Wilson’s historical precedent argument contains its own refutation, because it excludes the years before AD 100 from consideration. Why is this? No doubt because there is evidence of people understanding and teaching justification by faith alone apart from works before AD 100, i.e. in the New Testament era (see Romans chapters 1-5). Furthermore, as I mentioned previously, saying that there is “no evidence” (so says Wilson), or “no written record” (so says Anderson) is in reality an argument from silence, which doesn’t prove the point. So it remains nothing more than speculation. In other words, Wilson is trying to guess at how many people (if any) trusted in Christ in the NT sense of the word (faith apart from works) between the years “from AD 100 to about 1530” (p. 168), based on the absence of evidence! And then he forms soteriological conclusions based on his guess. How absurd! The apostle Paul says, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). What is Paul referring to? Is he referring to the writings that we find in church history between the years “from AD 100 to about 1530”? No, obviously not. Rather, Paul is saying “do not go beyond what is written” in the Bible. Do not go beyond what is written in the Scriptures. This would be before AD 100. That’s where we should be looking in regards to “the doctrine of justification by faith alone” (p. 10). In other words, to understand the doctrine of justification by faith alone, we should not primarily focus on the time span “from AD 100 to about 1530” (and what people supposedly believed or didn’t believe during that time), but rather we should look to the time before AD 100: the New Testament era, and in the New Testament itself! Even more absurd is that Wilson then assumes (based on the absence of evidence) that no one got saved by faith alone apart from works during that roughly 1400 year time span, and therefore since people during that time believed in the Roman Catholic doctrine of faith plus works for salvation (justification), that must also be a saving message. Talk about measuring the yardstick by the cloth (to once again borrow the phrase from Tyndale), that’s backwards!