A Free Grace Response to John Piper on James 2:14-26

In an article on the Desiring God website titled “Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?,” John Piper appeals to James 2:14-26 trying to prove that faith alone is insufficient for final salvation.[1] Under the heading “How Are We Ultimately Saved?,” Piper writes: “Especially as it pertains to final salvation, so many of us live in a fog of confusion. James saw in his day those who were treating “faith alone” as a doctrine that claimed you could be justified by faith which produced no good works. And he vehemently said No to such faith.”[2]

But in the book of James, the word “save” (sōzō) is sometimes used in reference to sanctification (e.g. Ja. 1:21, cf. Psa. 119:11; Phil. 2:12-13; 1 Pet. 2:1-2), not justification. Indeed, does Piper think that when James says, “And the prayer of faith will save [sōzō] the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up” (Ja. 5:15), that James is referring to salvation from hell? Clearly, the context must be allowed to shed light on the meaning of the word! In James 5:15 the word “save” obviously refers to physical healing, not salvation from hell. This is consistent with the meaning that the BDAG lexicon assigns to the word “save” in James 5:15: “to raise up from sickness, raise up=restore to health (the sick person is ordinarily recumbent) Js 5:15”[3]; “be ill...Js 5:15”[4]; “save/free from disease...Cp. Js 5:15”.[5] Thus it becomes clear that even in the book of James, the word “save” can refer to other things besides salvation from hell.

How then should we understand James 2:14 when it says, “Can that faith save him?” Is James referring to salvation from hell, or perhaps to something else? When we look at the context of James 2:14, it’s clear that James is addressing Christian “brethren” (v. 14), i.e. already saved people, and the question, “Can that faith save him?” (v. 14) is specifically referring to someone from this audience: “one of you” (v. 16). So how can a justified person still need saving? If we understand the word “save” as a general term which encompasses both justification and sanctification (and eventually glorification), then the meaning is clear: the man’s faith has no sanctifying effect! So salvation from hell is not the issue. Rather, the issue is: how useful is your faith to others? Is it “dead as a doornail” sitting there doing nothing (and thus even being counterproductive like a bent nail!), or is it being used for a good purpose to help others? That’s what James is talking about in 2:14-26.

But someone may say, “James 2:26 says, ‘faith without works is dead.’ Doesn’t this mean that it is spiritually dead and therefore not justifying?” Let’s take a look at the meaning of the word “dead”. In regards to the “dead” faith spoken of in James 2:26, the BDAG lexicon gives this definition of “dead”: “Pert[aining] to being so morally or spiritually deficient as to be in effect dead....of things n[ekros] erga dead works that cannot bring eternal life...faith apart from deeds (i.e. without practical application) is dead, useless Js 2:26b”.[6]

Several things can be pointed out here: (1) BDAG says “morally or spiritually deficient”. Thus, not necessarily spiritually “dead”! Possibly only morally “dead”, i.e. alive but without good works. (2) BDAG says “dead works that cannot bring eternal life”. When does the Bible say that good works bring eternal life, anyway?! We have not all become Roman Catholics, have we? So the Free Grace understanding of James 2:14-26 is in agreement with BDAG on this point. (3) BDAG clarifies that “faith apart from deeds (i.e. without practical application) is dead, useless Js 2:26b”. Again, the Free Grace position can accept this statement and agree with this statement because BDAG clarifies that the meaning is “dead” in the sense of “useless”. Useless for what? The Free Grace position would say that the “morally…deficient”[7] faith in James 2:26 is “useless” in terms of the faith’s “practical application” (to quote BDAG), i.e. the faith is not doing anything to help others. The issue is sanctification, not justification.

CLOSING THOUGHT

I can’t help but think that Piper may be one of those at the last judgment who says to the Lord Jesus, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” (Matt. 7:22, KJV). And Christ will say to them, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:23, KJV).


References:

[1] John Piper, “Does God Really Save Us by Faith Alone?” (September 25, 2017), Desiring God website, www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-really-save-us-by-faith-alone (accessed June 27, 2023).

[2] Ibid, emphasis his.

[3] 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, 2021), 4th Edition (BDAG), p. 241. See under the word egeirō.

[4] BDAG, p. 449. See under the word kamnō, ellipsis added.

[5] BDAG, p. 873. See under the word sōzō, ellipsis added.

[6] BDAG, p. 592. See under the word nekros, ellipsis added.

[7] I.e. “morally” deficient in the sense that good works have not been added to it (cf. 2 Pet. 1:5-9).

Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith, Pt. 2

Dr. Charles Ryrie

In this article I’d like to examine several key Bible verses pertaining to spiritual fruit in the Christian life and give my understanding of these verses from a Free Grace perspective. A Bible verse pertaining to this topic that people often misunderstand is Matthew 3:10. This is where John the Baptist says, “any tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” Well, what does that mean? How are we to interpret it? For example, do all Christians bear good fruit in their life? Do all Christians have good works? If so, how many? So I’m going to talk about that and provide some Free Grace answers from the Bible. I’m also going to take a look at Luke chapter 15, where Jesus says that “there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who need no repentance” (Lk. 15:7). I’m also going to discuss Romans 5:1, “having been justified by faith, we have peace with God.” And 1 Corinthians 3:15, “being saved yet so as through fire.” So these are some of the Scriptures that I’ll look at in this article.

I want to start out by referencing an article by Sam Storms titled, “Will Some Christians Smell Like Smoke on Judgment Day?”[1] Maybe some readers have never heard of Sam Storms. Who is Sam Storms? Wikipedia says, “Sam Storms is an American Calvinist Charismatic and amillennial theologian, teacher, and author. He is currently pastor emeritus of Bridgeway Church in Oklahoma City and past-president of the Evangelical Theological Society.” So he’s the author of this article apparently. And this may surprise some people, but I thought it was a pretty good article; I wasn’t expecting it to be. You know, being on The Gospel Coalition website. They tend to be more Reformed & Calvinistic, from what I’ve seen. So I was surprised at what Sam said, in terms of his position on answering this question. I was expecting him to say, “Well, no. How is that possible?” So I don’t think Sam Storms answers the question quite the same as John Piper would, for example. Piper seems to believe that every Christian is going to have this, you know, enduring and ongoing practical sanctification in order to attain the “reward” of heaven (as Piper calls heaven a “reward”). But Sam Storms seems to have a little different view of it, and for the most part I agree with his article actually. I wasn’t expecting to, but it’s pretty good. And I’m not going to read it all, but I wanted to read this passage in 1 Corinthians and then just share what Sam said about it, in particular about rewards: in answering this question about “Will Some Christians Smell Like Smoke on Judgment Day?” Sam says, “Our primary concern here is with Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15”.[2] I agree. Then quoting the apostle Paul, he writes:

“According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”[3] 

That’s the apostle Paul from 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. And then I like what Sam says, he sort of sums it up well, and I’m just going to quote his statement. And the caption on the left (in his article) is really good too. It says, “Note well that it is not the individual who is consumed by fire, but the work that he or she has produced in ministry to the body of Christ.”[4] I agree with that. And I talk about that in my article titled “Every Christian’s Final Destiny” (FGFS, May 7, 2022), which is an article I wrote in response to the Grace Evangelical Society, Bob Wilkin, and Joseph Dillow in particular, and his book Final Destiny, where he says that only faithful, enduring Christians will be granted the reward of the Millennial reign, that is, reigning with Christ in the Millennial Kingdom. So I wrote a response titled “Every Christian’s Final Destiny,” because I believe that every Christian is going to rule and reign with Christ in the Millennial Kingdom: because we overcome through our faith in Christ (see 1 John 5:4-5). But getting back to Sam’s article, he says: 

“Those whose work survives the test of fire ‘will receive a reward’ (v. 14); those whose work is burned up ‘will suffer loss’ (v. 15). This is apparently not the loss of salvation (since the next line says that ‘he himself will be saved’), but of the reward that he or she would have received had they obeyed or ministered more faithfully. Paul’s words in verse 15 may well be an allusion to Amos 4:11 and Zechariah 3:2. His point is that the person who persists in building badly will be saved, but like one plucked from a fire in the nick of time, perhaps with the smell of smoke still lingering!”[5] 

I agree. I’m pleasantly surprised to see Sam Storms saying this, because it’s basically a Free Grace view: that a person could be saved with no rewards. Which, you know, I’m always scratching my head and wondering, “Is it really going to happen that some Christians are going to be like this? Or is Paul just speaking hypothetically?” But it seems like it is at least possible. If we’re honest with the text, I think we’d have to say that. I’m not saying you have to come to that conclusion, but my view is that to honestly interact with this text, that’s what it’s saying. And not everybody sees it that way. For example, when I was a student at Moody Bible Institute, I remember I was discussing something about this with another student, a fellow classmate, and I said to the person something to the effect that “I believe that some Christians will be saved by the skin of their teeth,” I think is the way that I worded it; and I was thinking of this verse (1 Cor. 3:15). I can’t remember if I actually quoted the verse or referenced it at the time. But the student responded by saying, “Well, I don’t think anyone’s going to be saved by the skin of their teeth.” I didn’t go on to talk about it further with the student; but that view seems to be more of a Calvinistic view. Whereas I believe that it is entirely possible for people to be saved “by the skin of their teeth”! The Bible says in 1 Peter that some people will be “barely saved” (1 Pet. 4:18, NLT). The King James Version says, “if the righteous scarcely be saved” (1 Pet. 4:18, KJV). Daniel Wallace’s NET Bible says “barely saved” (1 Pet. 4:18, NET Bible). So this is entirely possible! I think of Lot in the Old Testament, that he didn’t want to leave Sodom; an angel practically had to drag him out because “he hesitated” (see Genesis 19:16). And the angel took him by the arm and led him out by the hand, and he was “barely saved”! And he was righteous; Peter calls him “righteous” (see 2 Pet. 2:7). So he was a righteous man, a saved man: but “barely saved”. You could say that he came out of Sodom smelling like smoke! So this is a Free Grace view, and it’s what the Bible teaches. 

Related to this, I’d like to just mention J. Vernon McGee’s comment on 1 Corinthians 3:15, from his Thru The Bible commentary series. He says that some Christians will get to heaven smelling like smoke! McGee is commenting on 1 Corinthians 3:15, the same verse that Sam Storms was commenting on as well. But this is J. Vernon McGee, and we’ll see that he basically takes the same position. McGee says, “Friend, what are you building today? What kind of material are you using? If you are building with gold, it may not be very impressive now. If you are building an old haystack, it will really stand out on the horizon, but it will go up in smoke.”[6] That’s a great illustration too, you know, because a lot of people have these works that look great, but God is the ultimate Judge; we don’t know. We don’t want to judge anyone’s motives, but just because something looks good doesn’t necessarily mean it is. The Bible says, “man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). Anything built with wood is going to get burned up in smoke on Judgment Day. That’s the idea. McGee goes on and says, “I like to put it like this: there are going to be some people in heaven who will be there because their foundation is Christ but who will smell as if they had been bought at a fire sale! Everything they ever did will have gone up in smoke. They will not receive a reward for their works.”[7] So that’s the quote by McGee that I think is interesting, and I agree with it. But notice he says, “They will not receive a reward for their works.” That’s key. I mean, in terms of a Free Grace position – especially as I’m trying to elucidate it, trying to explain it. So that’s a Free Grace view: that it’s entirely possible for a Christian to get to heaven with no rewards. McGee says in no uncertain terms: “They will not receive a reward for their works.” 

So then the question is, how do we explain these passages that seem to require works as inevitable after salvation? So I’m going to just give my Free Grace interpretation, I’m not saying it’s the best interpretation. I’m not saying I have it all figured out, but I’m just going to hopefully share a few things that some people maybe don’t know or haven’t thought about. The Bible says, “iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another” (Prov. 27:17, NIV). I’m not claiming to have all the answers, but hopefully I can get some people thinking. And that’s the main thing I want to do, is just share the Free Grace position, and get people thinking about it. And I’m going to reference an article that I wrote several years ago titled “Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith”. In that article I shared a little bit of my background growing up in a Free Grace church, and I pointed out that Wayne Grudem has made some claims that I take issue with; I think he misrepresents Free Grace theology, because Free Grace theology is much larger than the Grace Evangelical Society. A lot of people don’t seem to realize that. The Grace Evangelical Society, Bob Wilkin – that’s non-traditional Free Grace. And it’s pretty new on the horizon in the whole scheme of things, in terms of Free Grace theology. By way of contrast, Charles Ryrie is an advocate of traditional Free Grace theology. But traditional Free Grace goes back even before Charles Ryrie, at least to Lewis Sperry Chafer. There were a lot of people around his time that I would argue were Free Grace, and even before that. I would argue that D. L. Moody was Free Grace; Scofield was Free Grace. Not on every point; not on every issue. But I would say that generally they were in the Free Grace camp. And so, getting back to Grudem, I wrote the article because I wanted to point out that what Grudem is saying might be true if you’re just looking at non-traditional Free Grace and the Grace Evangelical Society, – but if you want to characterize “Free Grace” in general (as Grudem does), then no, you have to at least take into account Charles Ryrie.[10] I mean, come on! I’m surprised that Grudem doesn’t understand that, or maybe he thought he explained it. But quite honestly, I think he misrepresented Free Grace theology. And I brought that out in a few particulars in the article. 

But I want to get to Ryrie and what he says about fruit, because I think it’s really good, and I’ve always gone back to his statement since I came across it years ago. Because I think it’s really quite good; I think what he says goes a long way towards explaining this whole issue. There’s still some questions, I think, that remain. But I think what he says goes a long way towards answering a lot of those questions, if not all of the questions. I’m going to delve into it here a little bit, and kind of flesh it out hopefully a little more: at least give my view on it. But Ryrie says in his book So Great Salvation, “Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Otherwise that person is not a believer. Every born-again individual will be fruitful. Not to be fruitful is to be faithless, without faith, and therefore without salvation.”[8] That’s from Ryrie’s book So Great Salvation, page 45. And then on pages 132-134, he also talks more about fruit and faith, or at least faith. And he calls it “unproductive faith”. Ryrie says, “Unproductive faith is a spurious faith; therefore, what we are in Christ will be seen in what we are before men.”[9] 

Alright, so let’s just get into this. I mean, the first statement is the one that I think, to me, is the most helpful, and goes the farthest to answer a lot of questions about this whole issue of good works in the Christian life. And that’s when he says, “Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow.” To me, that statement is the most helpful. One of the reasons I think it’s helpful is because he (and this is just my commentary on Ryrie; I’m not saying that he makes the distinction that I’m going to make here), but to me it’s helpful because, for me it makes a distinction between fruit and works, fruit and works. Ryrie makes a point to specifically call it “spiritual fruit”, he says: “Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit.” He doesn’t say, “Every Christian will have good works.” So I really like how he calls it “spiritual fruit”. Why? Well, because he’s not saying that a Christian will necessarily have good works. And to me that’s helpful because of what we just read in 1 Corinthians 3:15: some Christians (hypothetically at least) are going to get to heaven without any good works! I mean, I don’t know how else you understand 1 Corinthians 3:15. Even Sam Storms is saying some Christians are going to get to heaven smelling like smoke! You know, McGee even says, “They will not receive a reward for their works.” That’s why I like what Ryrie says, is because he’s not calling it “works”; he’s calling it “spiritual fruit.” So I think there’s a difference. And I’ll try to explain the difference here in this article, viz. I believe that every Christian will have “spiritual fruit”, but not every Christian will have good works. So, what do I mean by that? Well, let’s look at 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. Because what language does the apostle Paul use? Does he say that some Christians are going to have no fruit? Or does he say “work”? What does he say? “Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw – each one’s....” what? Does he say fruit? No, he says “work”. So I think this is a good distinction, a helpful distinction. At least for me it’s a helpful distinction: that it is the “work” that is going to be judged. These are outward works that people have done, not merely fruit in their life. What do I mean by fruit? Let’s back up. What do I mean by fruit? Well, after you get saved, or when you get saved, you get the Holy Spirit, and then “the fruit of the Spirit is....” what? What is "the fruit of the Spirit"? Paul says that it’s “love, joy, peace...” (Gal. 5:22), let’s see what Paul says in verse 22: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” So these are the “fruit of the Spirit”; that’s what Ryrie is talking about when he says, “Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit.” Right? So every Christian has the Spirit and will bear (I would say) at least one of these: “love, joy, peace,” etc. But, it might not rise to the level of an outward good work in their life. It might not produce a good work in their life. For example, if someone has “peace”. That’s not an outward work; that’s an inner fruit, right? So I believe there’s a difference. I believe there’s a distinction, and in 1 Corinthians 3, Paul specifically says it’s the “work” that is going to be judged, right? That is, a work for which one might expect to receive a reward. I would take this to mean outward works, deeds, good deeds. Things that are actually done, like helping your neighbor; not just having the inner fruit of love, but actually acting on it to where it becomes a good “work”: an outward manifestation of the inner reality. So that’s what is going to be judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ: the outward works, the good works. Paul says, “each one’s [what?] work will be become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. But if anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:13-15, ESV). So what is being judged? Paul says, “…work each one has done” (1 Cor. 3:13b, ESV). Right? So this is more than fruit. This is more than spiritual fruit in your life. This is more than just an inner fruit of love, or joy, or peace. This goes beyond that to an outworking of that: a good deed that is actually “done”. Right? That’s what Paul says is going to be judged, right? So the point here being that (I believe) every Christian will have “spiritual fruit” in their life, that’s what Ryrie believes, right? But it won’t necessarily rise, or work itself out to a good deed in every believer’s life. So that’s a helpful distinction that I make. I’m not saying Ryrie makes that distinction, but I’m just elaborating on his statement. 

Ryrie also says: “Unproductive faith is a spurious faith; therefore what we are in Christ will be seen in what we are before men.” So he’s not saying that men will necessarily see it, but it will be seen. Someone might ask: “Well, how? Isn’t that an outward good work?” I don’t believe so; not necessarily. Why do I say that? Because if you read on in his book, what Ryrie talks about is, sometimes the “spiritual fruit” may be that there’s joy in the presence of the angels in heaven. And I’m not making this up. If you look in Luke chapter 15, Jesus talks about it actually twice: in verse 7, Luke 15:7, and in Luke 15:10. Jesus says in verse 7, “I tell you that in the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” Right? So there’s going to be joy when someone gets saved: when they place their faith in Christ. One of the spiritual fruits is “joy” (see Gal. 5:22). Not necessarily in the person’s life even! Right? I mean, there is joy where? In the person’s life? Well, that’s not what Jesus says. He says, “in heaven”! There’s joy “in heaven” (Lk. 15:7). Alright, so this is one of the examples that Ryrie gives in his book So Great Salvation, if you read it. I talk about this in my blog post “Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith” (in the comments section). And then in verse 10, Jesus says a similar thing: “In the same way I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Lk. 15:10). So again, joy, in the presence of – where? In the person? Not necessarily. But “in the presence of the angels of God” in heaven! Right? Okay, so this is not necessarily a good work in the Christian’s life. But it is “spiritual fruit”! And it is seen by Christ! Remember the Bible says that “man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart.” And again, this joy might not even be in the person’s heart, but it is a “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22) that results from the person’s faith. So my point is that this fruit will be seen but it’s not necessarily in the person, it’s “in the presence of the angels of God” in heaven. So that’s one example that I think is really helpful. Ryrie gives that example, and I’ve always gone back to that because I think it goes a long way to answering this whole issue. 

Another example that Ryrie gives along the same lines is from Romans chapter 5 and verse 1. It says, “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” That’s Romans 5:1. So according to his verse, every believer has “peace with God” (Rom. 5:1). You might say, “Well, that’s an objective thing between us and God.” Yes, I believe that is – but it’s also a fruit. And why do I say that? Well, that’s one of the specific fruits listed in Galatians 5:22, right after “joy”: “love, joy, peace”. (Remember we just looked at joy in Luke 15.) Well, “peace” is mentioned here by Paul as a “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22). And that’s what we just read in Romans 5:1, that every believer that’s justified has “peace” as a result of that. So is it the objective “peace with God”? Well, yes. Is that all it is? Well, in Galatians 5:22 it’s also a fruit. But my point is: okay, let’s say it’s only an objective peace with God. Well, then it’s not in the Christian, is it? But it’s still a result of their faith. And it’s still seen by God. So again, it’s not a good work is my point. It’s a “spiritual fruit”. It’s not a good work. What is going to be judged at the Judgment Seat, according to 1 Corinthians 3:13? It’s “what kind of work each has done” (1 Cor. 3:13, NET Bible) as a Christian, right? So again, the Christian might have “spiritual fruit” even if it’s only “peace with God” (Rom. 5:1) in the objective sense; or even if it’s only angels having “joy in heaven” (Lk. 15:7, 10) as a result of someone trusting Christ. That’s still “spiritual fruit” that’s from this person’s faith, right? Even if they did no good work at all, and all their works are bad and they’re all burned up, and the person is “saved yet so as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:15): their faith is still productive! Their faith still produced “joy” and “peace”, at the very least. Right? Even if it wasn’t in the person’s life. You know, even if it was just the objective “peace with God” (Rom. 5:1) and “joy in the presence of the angels” (Lk. 15:10), right? Those are still listed by the apostle Paul as “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22). It is “fruit” as the result of the person’s faith. So it’s a productive faith! Right? That’s how I understand what Ryrie’s saying. And for me, that solves it. That answers the questions for me. Before I move on let me just give Calvin’s commentary, because somebody’s probably thinking, “Where are you getting this from? Nobody agrees with you.” You know, I’ve heard that before. Well, John Calvin agrees! He agrees with Ryrie’s view on this (and I agree with Ryrie). And what does Calvin say? Let’s take a look at Calvin’s commentary on Romans chapter 5, and verse 1: “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Commenting on this verse, John Calvin says: “We have peace with God and this is the peculiar fruit of the righteousness of faith.” Okay, right there Calvin is agreeing that this “peace” from Romans 5:1 is a “fruit” of faith! It’s a fruit of faith: “peace with God”. And that’s what Ryrie is saying in his book So Great Salvation, or at least how I understand what he’s saying. So to me, that solves it. That answers the question. 

And let me get into a specific here, because you know somebody’s going to ask: “What about Matthew 3 and the axe that’s laid at the root of the trees?” I’ll just read it; it’s Matthew 3:10. This is John the Baptist preaching; he’s speaking to the Pharisees. And he says, well let me just back up and read a few verses to give it more context, because I want to bring in at least from verse 8. John the Baptist says to the Pharisees: “Therefore, bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance.” So in context he calls it “fruit,” but the way I understand it is that he’s clearly talking about good works. In Luke’s account he’s actually telling the people what good works they should do (see Lk. 3:8-14). In Luke 3:8 he says to them: “Therefore produce fruits that are consistent with repentance”. So what’s he talking about? Like I said, I believe he’s talking about good works when he says “fruit,” in other words: fruit rising to the level of good works. And we see that as we read on in the context, so I’ll just continue reading: “Therefore produce fruits that are consistent with repentance, and do not start saying to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children for Abraham. But indeed the axe is already being laid at the root of the trees, so every tree that does not bear good fruit…” (Lk. 3:8-9a). And let me just make a comment here. Notice he says, “every tree that does not bear good fruit” (Lk. 3:9b). So he’s talking about outward good fruit: fruit that rises to the level of an outward good work; fruit that becomes manifested in outward good work. Not simply having an inner peace, which is fine and good, but how does it work out? John the Baptist is saying that it needs to work out and be manifested. And he says, “every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. And the crowds were questioning him, saying, ‘What then should we do?’ ... The tax collectors came and said, ‘What should we do?’ And he said, ‘Collect no more than what you have been ordered to’” (Lk. 3:9b-13). So he’s giving specific good works to do, right? So again, this is a tricky passage, admittedly, but the way I would understand it is that some people may have only fruit in terms of joy in the presence of the angels in heaven. What is the outward good work that’s a result of that? Well, what does it say in Luke? It says there’s “rejoicing,” right? It says, “there is more rejoicing” (Lk. 15:7). So that would be the good work, and in this case it’s not even in the life of the believer! But the tree does “bear good fruit” (Matt. 3:10). How? Well, the angels “rejoice,” that’s an outward good work right? Let me go back to Luke 15. Jesus says in verse 7, “And I tell you in the same way that there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than over ninety-nine righteous persons who have no need of repentance.” And verse 10, Jesus says, “In the same way I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” So that’s rejoicing! I would call that a “good work”. And it’s a result of this person’s faith. You say, “But it’s only joy.” It is joy, but I would say joy in the sense of rejoicing. Or do you think that all the angels are just silently saying nothing? I’m sure they’re all raising a “glory hallelujah,” right? That’s the idea. And it’s because of this one person that gets saved! And I think that’s the idea if you read it in context. Because what does Jesus say? This is from the parable of the lost sheep. Jesus is talking about finding the lost sheep, and He says that when the man who lost his one sheep finds it, “he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing” (Lk. 15:5, KJV). So that’s the idea. It’s not just a silent joy, but it’s “rejoicing”! And it says when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors and says to them, “Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost” (Lk. 15:6). And then that’s when Jesus says, “I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (Lk. 15:7). So, clearly Jesus is saying they’re going to be rejoicing. They’re going to be calling their friends and their neighbors and saying to them, “Rejoice”! So these are clearly outward good works that are going on in heaven in the presence of God, with the angels rejoicing. It’s not just an inner joy, but it’s leading to an outward good work. Not necessarily in the believer’s life even, but the faith is producing – what does it say in Luke 3:9? It is “producing good fruit”! There are good works that are being done as a result of this person’s faith. So it’s not an unproductive faith, is my point. The good works that it produces are being seen, even if it’s in heaven. Right? It’s in the presence of God; that’s where it’s being seen. So it is being seen: not only by God, but also by angels. And that’s important. Don’t downplay that. The angels view this. They’re spectators of us, of mankind. Remember, the apostle Peter tells us in 1 Peter 1:10-12 that the angels desire to “look into” (v. 12, NIV) and “understand” (v. 12, GNT) more about our salvation. And so that’s important to consider, especially in light of what Jesus says in Luke 15:7 and Luke 15:10.

So anyway, that is my Free Grace understanding of spiritual fruit, productive fruit; and I see a distinction between spiritual fruit and outward good works. The latter, of course, being the outward good works about which the apostle Paul says that Christians “should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). So I hope this goes at least a little way towards explaining these issues and helping some people. For me, I know that I’ve sort of wondered about it, in terms of how do we understand these Bible verses? But again, what Ryrie says really helped me the most, I would say. And for those who may want more information, I would check out my article titled “Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith”. The article has some helpful comments where I sort of got into a little bit of a question and answer and explained more about my understanding of different things, but in particular on fruit, on faith, and on repentance. So I hope this is helpful to people, please let me know in the comments if you’d like.  

 

References:

[1] Sam Storms, “Will Some Christians Smell Like Smoke on Judgment Day?” (August 29, 2020), The Gospel Coalition website, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/will-some-christians-smell-like-smoke-on-the-day-of-judgment (accessed June 24, 2023). 

[2] Ibid. 

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] J. Vernon McGee, 1 Corinthians (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996), p. 46.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989), p. 45.

[9] Ibid., p. 132.

[10] Interestingly, if you look in the General Index of Grudem’s book “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (pp. 152-156), Charles Ryrie’s name isn’t even listed. The truth is, Grudem never mentions Ryrie anywhere in the book – not even once! The same can be said in regards to Lewis Sperry Chafer. Grudem never once mentions him anywhere in the book, not even in a footnote! How can anyone honestly write a book about “Free Grace” theology and never once mention two of its most well-known proponents? If the “shoe were on the other foot”, this would be like writing a book about Calvinism and never once mentioning John Calvin or Theodore Beza! Or it would be like writing a book purporting to critique “Calvinism” but only discussing the off-shoot view of Amyraldism. There are actually more references to Zane Hodges in the General Index of Grudem’s book than there are references to Jesus Christ and John MacArthur combined! Grudem strangely has a myopic fixation on Zane Hodges, to the exclusion of other (more prominent) Free Grace voices. And worse, Grudem seems bent on giving the (false) impression that the views of Zane Hodges characterize the Free Grace movement. That is to say, his book appears to be built on the premise that the views of Zane Hodges are representative of Free Grace theology in general. But this is hardly the case, as even a novice would know from reading just one Wikipedia article on the subject! Thus, Grudem’s entire book is built on a completely false premise and is a misrepresentation of Free Grace theology.

John Piper's New Religion, Part 3: Distorting the Biblical Concept of God

True to his Calvinistic beliefs, John Piper says that it was actually God who caused the brutal Nazi Holocaust; and it is God who brings about all the horrific murders inflicted by serial killers, and (according to Piper), God even brings about the sexual abuse of young children! Commenting on this, Piper affirms:

“This includes — as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem — God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: ‘The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil’ (Proverbs 16:4, NASB). ‘When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other’ (Ecclesiastes 7:14, NIV).”[1]

But this is nothing less than blasphemy! Piper & his band of hirelings (Jn. 10:12) are twisting Scripture “to their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16) and contorting the God of love into a demonic monster! As one pastor has succinctly stated: “I can think of no greater blasphemy – and there is no other word for it – than to claim that all such evil is by God’s design, that it is what he wanted and wants. [...] This wicked, blasphemous claim is really the root of all that is wrong with Calvinism.”

 

Piper’s Proof-Texts

Piper appeals to Proverbs 16:4 as a proof-text in support of his view, but this verse simply means that God has a purpose for everything He allows; not that He makes it happen, but He allows it to happen. Yes, God made the wicked (He made everything: Acts 17:24); but He did not make them be wicked! That was their choice (see Gen. 6:5-6). King Solomon wisely said: “Here is all I have been able to discover: God made the race of men upright, but many a cunning wile have they contrived” (Eccl. 7:29, Moffatt translation). T. T. Perowne affirms: “It is not said that God makes a man wicked, for He ‘made man upright’ (Eccles. vii. 29. Comp. Gen. i. 26, 27, 31), but that being wicked by his own choice he comes under the irrevocable law which dooms him to ‘the day of evil,’ of calamity and punishment. By this, the Apostle teaches us, even in its final and most awful form, is revealed not the arbitrary predestination, but ‘the righteous judgement of God.’ Rom. ii. 5—11.”[2] Piper also appeals to Ephesians 1:11, which he interprets to mean that God “brings about all things”.[3] But this is a misunderstanding of the Greek verb energeō, which literally means “to work in”. W. E. Vine in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words affirms: “ENERGEŌ (energeō), lit., to work in”.[4] Commenting on Ephesians 1:11, H. C. G. Moule similarly states: “The Gr. verb rendered ‘worketh’ is a compound; lit. ‘in-worketh.’ The usage of the verb warns us not to press this, but on the other hand the ‘in’ comes out more often than not in the usage. This suggests the explanation, ‘worketh in us;’ a special reference of Divine power to the process of grace in the soul and the Church.”[5] 

 

We can of course agree that God is sovereign, and that He does govern His creation (e.g. Psa. 22:28, 97:1, 103:19; Prov. 21:1; Dan. 4:32, etc.), but what does Piper mean by it? Piper apparently means (as he has said elsewhere) that “God does not just declare which future events will happen; he makes them happen.”[6] Piper seems to be echoing the words of John Calvin in his commentary on Ephesians chapter 1 verse 11, when he writes: “Who worketh all things. The circumlocution [roundabout speech] employed in describing the Supreme Being deserves attention. He speaks of Him as the sole agent, and as doing everything according to His own will, so as to leave nothing to be done by man.”[7] But if this is true, then God is the author and doer of sin! The comments on Ephesians 1:11 by F. F. Bruce are helpful, especially when he writes: 

 

“Even sin and other evils, however contrary to His will, can be turned by Him to serve His purposes of glory and blessing. This is pre-eminently manifested by the way in which that sin of sins, the rejection and murder of His incarnate Son, has become in His hands the means by which all the blessings of the gospel are secured to those who believe.”[8] 

 

This statement refutes the one made by John Calvin, because there are things such as “sin and other evils” which are done by others “contrary to His will”. God did not “make” these things happen (as Piper wants us to believe), but He can and does “turn” them to fulfill His ultimate purposes.[9] Ray Stedman affirms: “God does not make anyone sin, yet He is able to weave sinful human choices into His good plan.”[10]

 

Replacing The Light With Delight

Unfortunately, Piper’s distorted view of God goes far beyond Calvinism. An even more troubling aspect of his belief system is that it has been heavily influenced by the pagan philosophy of hedonism. In blatant disobedience to the command of the apostle Paul: “Come out from among them and be ye separate, says the Lord!” (2 Cor. 6:17), Piper actually yokes the pagan philosophy of hedonism together with Christianity in order to form what he calls “Christian Hedonism”. This is nothing less than Piper’s attempt to fashion a god in his own image, and for his own ultimate pleasure. Piper has replaced Jesus with his new religion of “Christian Hedonism”. It’s sometimes very subtle and just little-by-little introducing some error and twisting a little Scripture, hardly noticeable at times. I’ve already mentioned some specific examples in the two previous articles in this series, but here’s another example. Notice the title of one of Piper’s sermons from a few years ago; it’s titled: “From Darkness to Delight: A Fresh Call for Christian Hedonists”. It’s very subtle, but Piper has substituted “Delight” for “the Light”! In other words, Piper has replaced Jesus, the Light of the world, with his (Piper’s) new religion: his own personal delight!

 

Paul’s Warning To Timothy

I am reminded of the apostle Paul’s warning to young Timothy in his last epistle of 2 Timothy, which was written in about 67 AD. It’s worth noting that Piper especially targets young people as converts to his new religion, so Paul’s words to young Timothy are especially appropriate in regards to Christian Hedonism. Notice what Paul says to young Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:1-5: “But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For people will be...lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness although they have denied its power; avoid such people as these” (ellipsis added). Someone might say that Piper does love God, but in response to that I would ask: what god? The apostle Paul says that “there are many gods and many lords” (1 Cor. 8:5, NASB). What Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 highlights the danger of Christian Hedonism and sums it up quite well, as if Paul was writing specifically about Piper’s new religion! God in His omniscience foresaw that Christian Hedonism was coming on the horizon in the days ahead (“the last days” in which we live) and He wanted to warn us about it! The Bible says: “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8, NKJV).

 

What About Augustine?

Piper loves to quote Augustine, as if Augustine was a Christian Hedonist! It gives a veneer of credibility to Piper’s new religion. But Augustine made a clear separation between Christianity and the secular philosophies of the ancient world, such as hedonism and stoicism. Augustine makes this abundantly clear when he says: 

 

“The philosophers have worked out for themselves ways that go wrong; some have said, ‘This way,’ others, ‘Not that way, but this one.’ They have missed the true way [not missed the emotion of happiness, but missed “the true way”], because God opposes the proud. We would also miss it, unless it had come to us. [What would we also miss? Happiness? No, not merely happiness but rather something infinitely greater, yea rather Someone infinitely greater!] That’s why the Lord says, I am the way (Jn 14:6). Lazy traveler, you didn’t want to come to the way; the way came to you. You were inquiring how you should go: I am the way; you were asking where you should go: I am the truth and the life. You won’t go wrong when you go to him, by him. This is the doctrine of the Christians; certainly not something to be set beside the doctrines of the philosophers, but to be set incomparably above them, whether the sordid one of the Epicureans [the hedonists of the apostle Paul’s day], or the arrogant one of the Stoics.”[11]

 

This last sentence by Augustine is especially interesting, because he contrasts the doctrine of Christianity with the pagan philosophies of Paul’s day: hedonism (the Epicureans) and stoicism (the Stoics). Augustine says that Christianity is “not” to be set beside these philosophies, but instead is “incomparably above them”! What does this say about the modern-day philosophy of “Christian Hedonism”? Does not the philosophy of “Christian Hedonism” set Christianity beside Hedonism (hence the name) and even worse: is it not a mixing of the light with the darkness? Rightly does the apostle Paul ask in 2 Corinthians 6:14: “what fellowship hath light with darkness”? In the Old Testament, the downfall of the nation of Israel was when it began to follow after the pagan religions of the nations around it, not always by completely abandoning their own religion—but by mixing the true with the false! (This is known as religious “syncretism”: the mixing of different religions, philosophies, or ideas.) Indeed, Aaron said of the golden calf which he made, “This is your god, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!” (Exod. 32:4). Did a pagan god bring Israel out of the land of Egypt? No! This was a mixing of the false with the true! Indeed, what does Aaron say? “Now when Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of it; and Aaron made a proclamation and said, ‘Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.’” (Exod. 32:5). To who? Not to some unknown or foreign god, but “to the LORD”! To Yahweh God! This was religious syncretism: the mixing of two different belief systems into one. More specifically, it was the idolatry of happiness, the idolatry of self-gratification or pleasure where God was exploited as a means to an end, that end being the pleasure of the worshipper. And it was all done under the guise of “worship” to the true God. Indeed, what do the Scriptures say? “The people got up early the next morning to sacrifice burnt offerings and peace offerings [i.e. Jewish religious sacrifices]. After this, they celebrated with feasting and drinking, and they indulged in pagan revelry” (Exod. 32:6, NLT). This was all part of their worship “to the LORD” (v. 5), not to some foreign or unknown deity! Yet who would deny that this was plain idolatry: we could call it “Jewish Hedonism”! Today we have adapted a similar kind of worship for the church and we call it “Christian Hedonism”. Religious syncretism, particularly religious hedonism, is still a snare for God’s people today. 

 

Piper Is a Hedonist

It’s important to remember that at the end of the day, Piper is a hedonist. Being a Christian hedonist doesn’t mean he’s not a hedonist, it just means that he’s supposedly getting his pleasure not from wrong things or places, but from Christian sources: from God Himself. But that doesn’t erase the fact that Piper is a hedonist. So what about Christian Hedonism? In Christian hedonism (CH), God is exploited as a means to an end: that end being the pleasure of the worshiper, the pleasure of the individual. So who’s the real god in Christian hedonism? What is the highest aim, the highest end, the highest goal? It is one's own personal pleasure!

 

Is it wrong to be happy? No, of course not. But it is wrong to elevate happiness to a higher position than God Himself, which is exactly what CH is doing by relegating God to a cosmic “sugar daddy” who exists to give me what I really want: “My Pleasure!” (so says Piper). In CH, God is simply a means to an end, a way to get what the worshiper really wants as most important: their own personal happiness. Yes, God is thrown into the mix, that's what makes it "Christian hedonism". But God is not the highest motivation, aim, goal, end, pursuit, nor thing. The most important thing is the pleasure of the individual. 

 

So let's be honest and just recognize that Piper is a hedonist. 

 

What is a "hedonist"? A "hedonist" is someone who believes: 

 

• "the ethical theory that pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life." (Oxford Languages)

 

• "The pursuit of one's own pleasure as an end in itself; in ethics, the view that such a pursuit is the proper aim of all action. Since there are different conceptions of pleasure there are correspondingly different varieties of hedonism." (Oxford English Dictionary) 

 

• "living and behaving in ways that mean you have as much pleasure as possible, according to the belief that the most important thing in life is to enjoy yourself" (Cambridge Dictionary) 

 

• "hedonist: a person whose life is devoted to the pursuit of pleasure and self-gratification" (Collins Online Dictionary) 

 

That's what Piper believes, if he's a hedonist, which he is. So Piper believes that "[his own] pleasure is the highest good and proper aim of the human life". That's just the definition of hedonism. Anybody going to say that Piper doesn't believe in hedonism anymore? 

 

Christian Hedonism Is a Philosophy

Christian Hedonism is a philosophy, that's what makes it appealing to a lot of people. It's this new thing, and Piper is like one of the gnostic elites who has this deeper knowledge. And so people look up to him and they want that deeper knowledge. For example, in his article "Christian Hedonism: Forgive the Label, Don't Miss the Truth," Piper tells us what the "truth" is that we've all apparently missed for two thousand years thinking that the Bible is all we need! So Piper is here to give us the full understanding apparently, and this is what he says, "Christian Hedonism says...that we should pursue happiness, and pursue it with all our might." Well there you have it ladies and gentlemen! That's the truth according to John Piper, according to Christian Hedonism. But what do the Scriptures say? That's the real question, isn't it? "For what does the Scripture say?" (Rom. 4:3). Now this is interesting, because my Bible doesn't say to pursue my own personal happiness with all might, but rather it says: "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might" (Deuteronomy 6:5). So John Piper, this gnostic elite, says to pursue happiness with all your might. That's the truth according to CH. But the real truth, the truth that we find in the Bible, says something quite different. It's not about pursuing my happiness, but instead what am I instructed to do? What am I to do with all my might? Pursue happiness? No! But rather, "love the LORD your God" with all your might! Notice the difference: Piper's ultimate focus is on himself and pursuing his own happiness with all his might, whereas the Bible instructs us to "love the LORD your God" with all your might! This is the great and the foremost commandment (Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:36-40). In other words, Piper has replaced loving God with all his might (the greatest commandment), with pursuing his (Piper's) own personal happiness with all his might! Sadly, Piper's "truth" is nothing more than the idolatry of happiness. Dress that up with a little "psuedo-intellectual babble" (Col. 2:8, Amplified Bible) and slap a fancy label on it ("Christian Hedonism") and now you've got something! Now enrolling gnostic elites! 

 

What Do You Really Want?

Is it wrong to pursue happiness? No, of course not. But CH in effect "puts the cart before the horse" by using God as a means to an end, and that end or goal is the happiness of the worshiper. (In other words, instead of God being the highest goal or aim or most important thing, happiness is put in that place and God is simply the means by which the worshiper gets what he or she really wants, which is their own personal happiness. So CH has it backwards.) By way of contrast, Jesus said that the main thing is love: loving God and loving others, not personal happiness. Personal happiness will follow (see John 13:17), but it's not the goal, it's not the aim, it's not the most important thing, rather, it's a by-product that results from the main thing. Years ago, A. W. Tozer wrote a book titled "The Pursuit of God". Well, to put a title on Christian Hedonism, we could call it: "The Pursuit of Happiness". So, you see the difference? It's a different focus, a different aim. In CH, God is merely the means to an end, and that end is one's own pleasure or happiness. CH basically exploits God for what the worshiper really wants, which is their own personal happiness. CH basically uses God for what the worshiper can get out of Him (what the worshiper really wants), which is their own pleasure, happiness, delight, and satisfaction. Those things are not wrong, but when they usurp the place of God as the main thing, the most important thing, the goal, the aim, then they take the rightful place of God and they become idols set up in the place which is reserved for God alone. And that is idolatry. 

 

"Christian" or "Christian Hedonist"?

The followers of Jesus in the New Testament were simply called "Christians" (Acts 11:26), and they adopted this title because it was an accurate description: they were Christ-ones or Christ-followers, followers of Christ. Remember that hedonism was a pagan (or at least a secular) philosophy at that time, but interestingly the Christians did not call themselves Christian hedonists! This is significant. They simply called themselves "Christians". Why? Because they were follows of Christ, not Christ plus the philosophy of hedonism, but simply followers of Christ: followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It is HIM that we pursue with a single focus (regardless of how we feel about it in the moment), it is CHRIST ALONE that we follow! We do not follow Christ plus hedonism, we follow Christ alone. So you see the difference? Anything added to Christ alone as the Highest or most important or main thing is idolatry, not Christ plus, but Christ ALONE: "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also the head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything" (Col. 1:17-18, NASB). 

 

A Question Answered
Someone may say, “Well if a Christian is never happy, doesn’t that show they aren’t really saved?” But that’s like saying, “If my son isn’t happy he’s my son then he’s not really my son. He was never born!” Who would ever say such a thing? Only an evil father would say something like that! (And of course, that is the God of Calvinism.) We don’t ever say that about the natural birth, but strangely when it comes to the second birth and being in the family of God, theologians say it all the time! It shows how the wicked God of Calvinism is not the God of the Bible. The Calvinist might respond by saying, “But it’s different because a physical child doesn’t choose their parents, whereas a spiritual son does.” Aha! No Calvinist can consistently say that because they believe that God is hyper-sovereign (in the Calvinistic sense) and that everything happens because God “makes” it happen. God choosing some people for salvation, and others He chooses for damnation. So no, the Calvinist does not believe that a person chooses to enter into God’s family; but rather, they believe that God overcomes the person’s resistance and “makes” them get saved. This is important to point out and keep in mind. But getting back to the objection, just because a person chooses to place his or her faith in Christ and thus in effect chooses to be in God’s family doesn’t necessarily mean that the person will always be “supremely happy” in God. Remember, Christians still have a sin nature and the Christian’s three enemies are still alive and well on planet earth: the world, the flesh, and the devil. The great apostle Paul even said: “The good that I want to do I don’t do, and the evil that I don’t want to do, I do! Oh wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from this body of death?” (Rom. 7:23-24). It doesn’t sound at all like Paul was supremely happy! In fact, quite the opposite! It sounds like the apostle Paul was supremely unhappy! I’m not going to say that’s the normal Christian experience, but biblically, it is possible. The Bible talks about carnal Christians (see 1 Corinthians 3). The apostle Paul tells the Corinthians: “you are yet carnal” (1 Cor. 3:3). Paul goes on to say that some had even committed the sin unto death, but that they would still be saved in the end and not condemned with the world (see 1 Cor. 11:30-32). Calvinists try to dismiss this and/or downplay this fact because it doesn’t fit into their theological belief system. They are sadly like the Pharisees to whom Jesus said: “In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men” (Matt. 15:9).

 

ENDNOTES:

[1] John Piper, “All the Good That Is Ours in Christ: Seeing God’s Gracious Hand in the Hurts Others Do to Us” (Oct. 8, 2005), Desiring God 2005 National Conference. Note: In contrast to Piper, Norman Geisler writes: “‘What caused Lucifer to sin?’ No one did. He is the cause of his own sin. Sin is a self-caused action, one for which we cannot blame anyone or anything else. Who caused the first sin? [In other words, who ‘brought about’ the first sin?] Lucifer. How did he cause it? By the power of free choice, which God gave him. Thus God made evil possible by creating free creatures; they are responsible for make it actual.” (Geisler, If God, Why Evil? [Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2011], p. 31.) R. Laird Harris (a Calvinist!) writes the following comments in regards to Proverbs 16:4 that are well worth noting: “This verse has been appealed to in support of an extreme Calvinism. Delitzsch comments that ‘the wickedness of free agents is contemplated in this plan,’ but he does not take the verse in the sense of a predestination to evil, which careful Calvinists do not hold. Calvin himself, according to Delitzsch, asserted that predestination to evil would be a ‘horrible dogma.’ But in the Bible divine sovereignty is taught side by side with free agency. The celebrated verse, ‘I make peace and create evil’ (Isa 45:7), clearly does not mean moral evil, but calamity.” (R. Laird Harris, “Proverbs.” Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, Editors, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary [Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1962], p. 570.)

[2] T. T. Perowne, The Proverbs (Cambridge: The University Press, 1899), p. 114.

[3] Ibid, emphasis his.

[4] V. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, n.d.), p. 1244, brackets added.

[5] H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle to the Ephesians (Cambridge: The University Press, 1893), p. 52, italics his. Note: Commenting on Ephesians 1:11, Harold Hoehner similarly writes: “The participle energountos is from energeō, which is derived from the adjective energos from which we get our English word ‘energy.’ The verb occurs only seven times in the LXX (four times in the canonical books: Num 8:24; Prov 21:6; 31:12; Isa 41:4) and has the idea of performing or working. In the NT it is used twenty-one times, all of them by Paul except three (Matt 14:2 = Mark 6:14; Jas 5:16). Predominantly, it refers to the working of God’s will in the life of believers. This may include the concept of infusion with supernatural power. It occurs four times in Ephesians (1:11, 20; 2:2; 3:20) and refers to God’s power with the exception of 2:2 where it speaks of the devil’s power which is now working in unbelievers. In the present context tou ta panta energountos [‘of Him who works all things’] is active and transitive with the accusative of the thing referring to God as he takes an active part in all things. The present tense refers to God’s continual activity toward the purpose that he resolved in eternity past.” (Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002], p. 229, bold added.)

[6] John Piper, Coronavirus and Christ (Wheaton: Crossway Publishers, 2020), p. 40, emphasis his.

[7] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, translated by William Pringle (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1854), p. 206, italics his.

[8] F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Ephesians (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1961), p. 34. Norman Geisler similarly states: “The Bible says God predetermined that Jesus would be the lamb slain before the creation of the world (Revelation 13:8). Peter said, ‘This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God’ (Acts 2:23 ESV). But even though the cross was predestined by God, nonetheless, it was freely chosen by Christ: ‘I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord’ (John 10:17-18 ESV). In short, God is the ‘author’ of everything that happens in the indirect and ultimate sense; He is not the immediate cause of evil actions. He neither promotes them nor produces them; He permits them and controls the course of history so that it accomplishes His ultimate purposes. Just as Joseph told his brothers who left him for dead, ‘You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good’ (Genesis 50:20), even so God overrules the evil intent of humans to accomplish His ultimate good.” (Geisler, If God, Why Evil?, p. 24.)

[9] While it is true that “the king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, like rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes” (Prov. 21:1, NKJV), it is equally true that people can “harden” their hearts (see 2 Chron. 36:13; Psa. 95:8; Dan. 5:20; Zech. 7:12; Matt. 19:7-8; Mk. 6:52, 8:17, 10:4-5, 16:14; Eph. 4:18; Heb. 3:15, etc.), as did Pharoah in the Old Testament. In this case, the “rivers of water” in the hand of the Lord become like ice, hard and immovable. Bruce Demarest (a Calvinst) makes a very insightful comment in regards to this when he writes: “Some allege that the approximately ten references to God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Exod 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; et al.) support the thesis of unconditional reprobation to damnation. But prior to mentioning the divine hardening, Scripture indicates that Pharaoh freely opposed God’s purposes (Exod 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34, 35; et al.; cf. 13:15; 1 Sam 6:6). The Bible does not explain the nature of the hardening, but it appears that God’s role was that of confirming Pharaoh’s decisions rather than predetermining them....The hardening thus represents God’s punishment of Pharaoh for rejecting God’s good purposes.” (Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, p. 135.) Similarly, J. Vernon McGee has well said: “There never will be a person in hell who did not choose to be there, my friend. You are the one who makes your own decision.” (McGee, Romans Chapters 9-16, p. 32.) John Piper takes a different view of all this, in that he believes in the Calvinistic doctrine of “double predestination,” that God both unconditionally elects some people to heaven, and others he unconditionally elects to hell. (For more information concerning Piper’s beliefs on this, I would direct the reader’s attention to his podcast: “Does God Predestinate People to Hell?,” https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/does-god-predestine-people-to-hell.)

 

[10] Ray C. Stedman, For Such a Time as This (Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers, 2010), p. 17.

[11] Augustine, Sermon 150, “On the words of the Acts of the Apostles 17:18-34: But some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began debating with him, etc.” John E. Rotell, editor, translated by Edmund Hill, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Part III — Sermons (New Rochell, NY: New City Press, 1992), vol. 5, p. 37.

Debunking a Calvinist Myth About Repentance

It has incorrectly been said by Reformed Theologians that “Many [Free Grace supporters] understand repentance to mean simply a ‘change of mind’....It is a definition unique to Free Grace supporters, without scholarly support from the academic community”.[1] This is yet another unfounded claim by those in Reformed circles, with the ultimate goal being, or at least the effect being, to disparage Free Grace Theology. I’m actually shocked that such sloppy scholarship would even get published! But then again, the publisher is Crossway: a book mill for Calvinistic drivel. This explains how such careless work as that quoted above could ever “pass muster” during what is normally a rigorous pre-check and review process at the publishing house. But I digress. On the topic of repentance, the truth is simply this: the traditional Free Grace view of repentance as “a change of mind” actually goes back hundreds of years and has troves of “scholarly support from the academic community”![2] I’ve already written about this at length; but here’s yet another example, this from Philip Schaff in his book The Creeds of Christendom, Volume III: “THE EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT CREEDS”. On pages 814-826, Schaff lists the “ARTICLES OF RELIGION OF THE REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN AMERICA.  A.D. 1875.” This is a Protestant confession of faith. Here’s what Article XIII says; it reads as follows:

ARTICLE XIII. 

Of Repentance. 

     “The repentance required by Scripture is a change of mind toward God, and is the effect of the conviction of sin, wrought by the Holy Spirit. 

     The unconverted man may have [not “will have” but “may have”] a sense of remorse, or of shame and self-reproach, and yet he may have neither a change of mind toward God nor any true sorrow; but when he accepts Christ as his Saviour [Note: There is no mention of the unconverted man making Christ the Lord of his life. Cf. Article XI: “Of Faith.”], therein he manifests a change of mind, and is in possession of repentance unto life. The sinner comes to Christ through no labored process of repenting and sorrowing [!]; but he comes to Christ and repentance both at once, by means of simply believing. And ever afterwards his repentance is deep and genuine in proportion as his faith is simple and childlike.”[3]

 

Also notice Article XIX; it confirms that the definition of repentance is simply a “change of mind”:   

ARTICLE XIX 

Of Sin after Conversion.

     “The grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after conversion: that is to say, after, by the quickening into life by the Holy Ghost, they have turned to God by faith in Christ, and have been brought into that change of mind which is repentance unto life. For after we have received the Holy Ghost we may, through unbelief, carelessness, and worldliness, fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may [not “will”] arise again, and amend our lives; but every such fall is a grievous dishonor to our Lord, and a sore injury to ourselves.”[4]

 

Now of course there will be some debate in regards to the statement from Article XIII that “ever afterwards his repentance is deep and genuine”, but I would argue this needs to be understood in connection with the words that follow: “in proportion as his faith is simple and childlike.” In other words, if the believer’s faith is not simple and childlike, neither will his repentance (as a believer) be deep and genuine. No doubt Calvinists will interpret the statement in the sense of perseverance, but even so, this does not intrude upon the definition of repentance first given, viz. “simply believing”, or in other words:  having “a change of mind”! 

References:

[1] Wayne Grudem, “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway Publishers, 2016), p. 70, ellipsis added. Note: The “Reformed Theologians” that I’m referring to are those quoted on the first 2-3 pages of Grudem’s book, in the endorsements.

[2] For more information see my blog post titled: “Free Grace Theology: 6 Ways Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance”.

[3] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877), Vol. 3, p. 818, brackets added.

[4] Ibid., p. 820, brackets added.

Christ’s Burial in the Gospel: It’s More Powerful Than You Might Think!

Some Free Grace people don’t believe that Christ’s burial is part of the gospel because according to them, “it’s only a proof”. This is one of the favorite talking points of groundless gospel advocates. Their mantra goes something like this: “The burial of Christ is only a proof, it’s not really part of the gospel.”[1] But there are several glaring problems with that line of reasoning that should be pointed out: 1) The statement is a non-sequitor fallacy. It does not logically follow that "a proof is not a part." 2) It's actually "special pleading" because as I will go on to point out, proponents of the groundless gospel are not consistent to apply this same reasoning to Christ's resurrection, which the Bible clearly labels a "proof" (Acts 17:31; cf. Rom. 1:1-4). They don't exclude Christ's resurrection from their gospel even though it's a "proof"! So they have a double standard. 3) The groundless gospel mantra of "it's only a proof not a part" is additionally the either/or fallacy (the false dilemma fallacy), since according to the Bible, Christ's resurrection is specifically said to be a "proof" (Acts 17:31; cf. Rom. 1:4) and yet it's still part of the gospel! (See 1 Corinthians 15:4.)

 

What's more, the four facts listed in 1 Cor. 15:3b-5 -- Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and appearances -- are ALL proofs:

• Christ’s death is proof of His passion (Jn. 15:13; Rom. 5:8)

• Christ’s burial is proof of His perfection (Isa. 53:9; 1 Pet. 2:22-23)

• Christ’s resurrection is proof of His payment (Jn. 19:30; 1 Cor. 15:17)

• Christ’s manifestation is proof of His physicalness (Lk. 24:39; Acts 1:3)

 

So if proponents of the groundless gospel were consistent with their own reasoning, they would actually have no gospel to preach at all because each element of the biblical gospel is distinctly a proof! As I pointed out above, Jesus’ resurrection is said to be “proof” of His deity (see Acts 17:31; cf. Rom. 1:1-4). So, is the resurrection of Jesus Christ now not part of the gospel because the Bible says it’s a “proof”? Of course not! Such reasoning is groundless; it’s not true in regards to Christ’s resurrection and it’s not true in regards to Christ’s burial either. Both elements are proofs and yet both elements are part of the gospel. And so we see that "the proof is in the pudding" (so to speak), or in this case, the proof is in the gospel.

Notice what the Christian apologist Justin Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.) says about the power of proof. He writes: “For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognized as being what it was stated to be.”[2] So Justin Martyr's statement highlights the error of those who say  that Christ's burial is "just a proof." According to proponents of the groundless gospel, "proof" is relegated to a secondary status. But according to Justin Martyr (one of the greatest Christian apologists of all time), the fact that Christ's burial is a proof actually gives it a primary status! It reminds me of what the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:3, "I delivered these things to you as of first importance"! Christ's burial is included in the things "of first importance"! (See 1 Cor. 15:4.) The fact that Christ's burial is a proof is perfectly consistent with it's priority status, because a proof is "more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves"! How can this be so? Because as Justin Martyr points out, if it weren't for the proof (Christ's burial), many people probably wouldn't believe the fact that is being proved: Christ's death!

I also want to point out John Wycliffe’s testimony to the truth of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5, and how he specifically highlights the significance & meaning of Christ’s burial in the gospel. Notice what he says:

“I make known unto you the gospel which I preached to you. 1 Cor. 15:1....Paul delivered to the Corinthians the faith which he received from the Lord, the faith should be the source of meritorious works that follow. The four articles of the faith of Christ preached to the Corinthians which presupposes the incarnation of Christ and the birth. For he taught them first that Christ died for our sins not for His own (as is clear from Isaiah [53]:5); was buried to prove the truth of his death more than by miracles (as is clear in Matthew 27 [:57-66]); thirdly He rose again the third day according to the first day and ultimately a synecdoche of the fourth [day], beginning the natural day from the middle of the night; fourthly He appeared to Peter and others (the end of Matthew). 1 Cor. 15:3, 4, 5.”[3]

Wycliffe affirms “that Christ...was buried to prove the truth of his death more than by miracles (as is clear in Matthew 27 [:57-66]”. That’s truly a powerful fact of the gospel! Have you believed it? If not, do so today.

References:

[1] Such a view of the gospel, however, is not according to sound doctrine. Commenting on Isaiah 53:9, Warren Wiersbe affirms the biblical truth when he says: “The burial of Jesus Christ is as much a part of the gospel as is His death (1 Cor. 15:1-5), for the burial is proof that He actually died.” (Wiersbe, Be Comforted [Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2009], p. 162.) In his commentary on John, Edwin A. Blum similarly states: “The burial of Jesus is part of the gospel (‘He was buried,’ 1 Cor. 15:4).” (Edwin A. Blum, John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, Editors, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament Edition [Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 1983], p. 341, comment on John 19:40-42.) Norman Geisler, the Christian apologist, likewise affirms that “Paul used Jesus’ burial as part of the Gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15. Burial is an essential part of the ‘gospel’ since Paul defined the ‘gospel’ as involving death, burial, and resurrection appearances.” (Norman L. Geisler and Douglas E. Potter, “Christian Burial: A Case for Burial” [April 14, 2009], Christian Research Institute, Article ID: DC765.) Note: Groundless gospel advocates respond by saying that only Christ’s death and resurrection are followed by the phrase “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3, 4), surmising that only these two facts are really part of the gospel. There are, however, at least three glaring problems with such a view: 1) It assumes that the other two facts mentioned by Paul in the passage (i.e. Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances in vv. 4-5) are not “according to the Scriptures”. This assumption is clearly false in light of the resounding testimony of God’s Word: e.g. Deut. 21:23; Psa. 16:8-11, Psa. 22:22, Psa. 40:3; Isa. 53:9-10; Hosea 6:2-3; Jonah 1:17; Zeph. 3:8; Matt. 12:40; Rom. 1:1-2; Rom. 10:16, etc. These are just some of the Old Testament Scriptures that predict Christ’s burial and/or His resurrection appearances; so these two facts are obviously “according to the Scriptures”. Indeed, Jesus specifically said that His burial is according to the Scriptures (see Matthew 12:38-41)! To be consistent, groundless gospel advocates would have to say that Isaiah 53:9 and Jonah 1:17 (just to cite two examples) are not part of the Old Testament Scriptures! Of course they would never make such a statement because that conclusion is obviously false, but this only highlights that their no-burial interpretation of the gospel is flawed. Their interpretation of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 is not based on solid exegesis, but rather it’s based on a skewed theological bias imposed upon the text. For more information see my blog posts titled “Getting the Gospel Right” and “God’s Word on the Gospel”. 2) The second glaring problem with the groundless gospel interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:3-5 is that it begins with a theological premise rather than with the exegesis of the passage. In other words, rather than beginning with the Greek grammar of vv. 3b-5 and the four hoti content clauses which clearly describe the content of Paul's gospel, groundless gospel advocates skip past that (pun intended!) and begin instead with their theological assumption that the content of the gospel is defined by the twice repeated phrase “according to the Scriptures” (vv. 3, 4) – two phrases which, amazingly, they don’t even include in their (re)definition of the gospel! Such a method of Bible interpretation is flawed because it in effect “puts the cart before the horse.” Charles Ryrie has correctly stated: “Accurate theology rests on sound exegesis.” Groundless gospel advocates turn this around; in effect their motto is: “Accurate exegesis rests on sound theology.” But that’s backwards! For we would not have theology if it did not first come from exegesis. So in order to interpret the Bible correctly, we must begin with the exegesis of the passage. For more information on this, see my blog post series titled: “Getting the Gospel Right”. 3) The third glaring problem with Rokser’s and Stegall’s (mis)understanding of the phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is that they don’t even include these two phrases in their gospel! According to them, the twice repeated phrase “according to the Scriptures” merely marks out the content of the gospel but is not included in that content itself. It’s truly a tragedy that groundless gospel advocates exploit “the Scriptures” in this way. Is it any wonder that a man-made gospel doesn’t even include the references to “the Scriptures”?! They are deceiving many. Remember, Satan was masterful at twisting the Scriptures and leaving bits and pieces of Scripture out (see Gen. 3:1-4; Lk. 4:10-11, compare Psa. 91:11-12), just like Rokser and Stegall do with the gospel. The Free Grace theologian William R. Newell warns against distorting the gospel when he says: “This story of Christ’s dying for our sins, buried, raised, manifested, is the great wire along which runs God’s mighty current of saving power. Beware lest you be putting up some little wire of your own, unconnected with the Divine throne, and therefore non-saving to those to whom you speak.” (Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, p. 21.) Newell goes on to say: “Therefore, in this good news, (1) Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (2) He was buried, (3) He hath been raised the third day according to the Scriptures, (4) He was manifested (1 Cor. 15:3 ff),—in this good news there is revealed, now openly for the first time, God’s righteousness on the principle of faith. We simply hear and believe: and, as we shall find, God reckons us righteous; our guilt having been put away by the blood of Christ forever, and we ourselves declared to be the righteousness of God in Him!” (Ibid., p. 24.) The apostle Paul says: “But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his trickery, your minds will be led astray from sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, this you tolerate very well!” (2 Cor. 11:3-4, NASB)

 

[2] Justin Martyr, “Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection,” The Writings of Justin Martyr, Revised and Arranged by A. Cleveland Coxe, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Editors, Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (Buffalo, NY: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885), Vol. 1, p. 294. Note: This is the American Reprint of the Edinburgh Edition. In the Edinburgh Edition, the reference is: Justin Martyr, “Extant Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection”, The Writings of Justin Martyr, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Editors, Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1867), Vol. 2, p. 341.

[3] John Wycliffe, “Sermon XLV [1 Cor. 15:1-11]”, Johann Loserth, Editor, Johannis Wyclif Sermones, Vol. 3 (London: Published for the Wyclif Society by Trubner and Co., 1889), pp. 384, 386, italics his, ellipsis and brackets added. The reference to 1 Cor. 15: 3, 4, 5 is cited in the footnotes in the book. Translated from the Latin by Jonathan Perreault. Note: Wycliffe’s reference to “the fourth [day]” seems to be an allusion to Psalm 16:10-11. In Jewish thought, corruption of a dead body would not begin until the fourth day after death; the body was supposed to be really dead by that time (Jn. 11:17, 39). Jewish Christian scholar Alfred Edersheim affirms: “It was the common Jewish idea that corruption commenced on the fourth day”. (Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912], 2 Vols., Vol. 2, p. 324.) This Jewish mindset could explain why Jesus waited until the fourth day to raise Lazarus from the dead: by that time there could be no question that Lazarus was indeed really dead, and hence, no question that he was actually raised to life by Jesus. In distinction to Lazarus, Christ “was raised on the third day” (1 Cor. 15:4), thus fulfilling the words of David in Psalm 16:10: “Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay” (see Peter’s explanation in Acts 2:27-32; cf. Acts 10:39-41). Wycliffe seems to be saying that by synecdoche (a figure of speech in which the part is exchanged for the whole, or one idea is exchanged for another associated idea) Christ’s resurrection on the third day still has meaning and significance in regards to the fourth day in Jewish thought. Although Christ in the tomb did not undergo decay, He was nonetheless truly dead and has truly risen!

The Problem of Doubt | by J. Dwight Pentecost

J. Dwight Pentecost

“A man came to my office several years ago, and I had the joy of pointing Him to Christ through the Word of God. Without my suggesting it, he dropped down beside his chair and poured out his heart to God, saying that he was accepting Jesus Christ as his Saviour. He walked out of my office radiantly happy. The next day he called me up and said, ‘I don’t know whether I’m saved or not.’ Then he told me something he had done. In the light of God’s Word, his action was wrong; and because he had sinned after he had accepted Christ, he couldn’t conceive of the fact that he was still saved. So over the phone I read him a number of verses, and it satisfied him—until the next day. Phoning again, he said, ‘I just don’t feel saved.’ Then he made this significant remark: ‘If I were God, and I had one who professed to be my son who did what I’ve done, I’d throw him out.’ In other words, ‘If I were God, this is the way I’d deal with him.’ He was trying to bring God down to his level in saying, ‘Since this is what I would do if I were God, God must do what I would do if I were God,’ and he was plagued with doubt. After that went on for about ten days, I said, ‘This isn’t something we can settle over the phone. Let’s get together.’ He came to my office again. When he walked in I said, ‘Well, how are things going?’ He said, ‘I just don’t feel saved.’ I said to him, ‘Are you married?’ I knew he was. He said, ‘Sure.’ I said, ‘Do you always feel married?’ He started to make a remark and then realized that I was serious. He began to see what I was getting at, so he said, ‘You know, whether I feel married or not doesn’t have anything to do with it. I am whether I feel it or not.’ I said, ‘Did you ever realize that whether you feel saved or not has nothing to do with it?’ He said, ‘It doesn’t?’ I said, ‘No. You’ve been plagued with doubts about your salvation because you’re ignorant of God’s Word and His power. The Word says, ‘He that hath the Son hath life,’ and the kind of life He has given you is everlasting life, but you didn’t know that. You’re plagued with doubts because you’re ignorant of the power of God, for you feel that He is unable to keep that which has been committed unto Him against that day.’ We talked awhile, and that was the last time I ever had a phone call from him.

 

The man said, ‘If I were God, I would do so and so.’ And that was Thomas’ attitude [in John 20:24-25]. Thomas said, ‘If I were God, this isn’t the way I’d work.’ Because of his ignorance he brought God down to his level; and if God is no bigger than you are, no wonder you have doubts about your God. [...] Martin Luther once said that you can’t keep the birds from flying over your head, but you can keep them from nesting in your hair. You can’t keep doubt from coming into your mind, but a doubt must be retained there or it will dissipate in the light of the Word of God. If you insist on nourishing and retaining your doubts they will grow. But if you bring them into Christ’s presence and expose them to the person of Christ, then they will dissipate and God will reveal Himself through His Son as the one to be trusted and believed. The light of His countenance will cause the darkness of doubt to disappear. When this mind is subjected to the mind of Christ and to the truth of the Bible, we come to personal, intimate fellowship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Doubts must vanish as light dissipates darkness. May God deliver us from doubt as we confess that He is our Lord and our God.”[1] 

 

 

Reference:

 

[1] J. Dwight Pentecost, Life’s Problems God’s Solutions: Answers to Fifteen of Life’s Most Perplexing Problems (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1971), pp. 69-75, ellipsis added.