John MacArthur's Gospel According To Rome

In an article in Bibliotheca Sacra titled “The Terms of Salvation,” Lewis Sperry Chafer draws attention to the Roman Catholic roots of the false teaching popularly known as “Lordship Salvation”. Chafer points out that demanding the unsaved to surrender to the Lordship of Christ was a characteristic of The Oxford Movement, which was a teaching that originated in Oxford, England in the mid-19th century. This movement was essentially a push to return to the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines the Oxford Movement as follows: “Oxford movement, 19th-century movement centred at the University of Oxford that sought a renewal of ‘catholic,’ or Roman Catholic, thought and practice within the Church of England in opposition to the Protestant tendencies of the church.”[1] With this in mind, notice what Chafer says in regards to how The Oxford Movement relates to those who “impose a need to surrender the life to God as an added condition of salvation”. Chafer says the following under the heading “BELIEVE AND SURRENDER TO GOD”:

“On account of the subtlety due to its pious character, no confusing intrusion into the doctrine that salvation is conditioned alone upon believing is more effective than the added demand that the unsaved must dedicate themselves to do God’s will in their daily life, as well as to believe upon Christ. The desirability of a dedication to God on the part of every believer is obvious, and is so stressed in the Sacred Text that many sincere people who are inattentive to doctrine are easily led to suppose that this same dedication, which is voluntary in the case of the believer, is imperative in the case of the unsaved. […] to impose a need to surrender the life to God as an added condition of salvation is most unreasonable. God’s call to the unsaved is never said to be unto the Lordship of Christ; it is unto His saving grace. […] Those attending upon such issues in practical ways are aware that a self-dedication taxes the limit of ability even for the most devout believer. The error of imposing Christ’s Lordship upon the unsaved is disastrous even though they are not able intelligently to resent it or to remind the preacher of the fact that he, in calling upon them to dedicate their lives, is demanding of them what they have no ability to produce. A destructive heresy was formerly abroad under the name The Oxford Movement, which specializes in this blasting error, except that the promoters of the Movement omit altogether the idea of believing on Christ for salvation and promote exclusively the obligation of surrender to God. They substitute consecration for conversion, faithfulness for faith, and beauty of daily life for believing unto eternal life. As is easily seen, the plan of this Movement is to ignore the need of Christ’s death as the ground of regeneration and forgiveness, and to promote the wretched heresy that it matters nothing what one believes respecting the Saviorhood of Christ if only the daily life is dedicated to God’s service. A pseudo self-dedication to God is a rare bit of religion with which the unsaved may conjure. The tragedy is that out of such a delusion those who embrace it are likely never to be delivered by a true faith in Christ as Savior. No more complete example could be found today of ‘the blind leading the blind’ than what this Movement presents.”[2]

In case someone might think that Chafer was referring to “The Oxford Group Movement” instead of specifically “The Oxford Movement,” even John MacArthur understood Chafer as referring to the latter of the two: The Oxford Movement. This is significant because The Oxford Movement was a return to Roman Catholicism. Concerning this, MacArthur writes: “It is important to note that when Chafer wrote those things, he was arguing against the Oxford Movement, a popular but dangerous heresy that was steering Protestants back into the legalism and works-righteousness of Roman Catholicism.”[3] What MacArthur inadvertently clarifies and affirms is that this is actually a reference to the Roman Catholic roots of Lordship Salvation, because MacArthur has unwittingly adopted some of their views! Pastor John Ricci highlights this very fact when he says the following: “[Some] Protestants have adopted a softer version of Catholicism, they throw out the Purgatory and the Sacraments, but they keep the works! Let me give you an example of what’s being taught now. John Piper has written this about what salvation is. And he’s a big name. John MacArthur is kind of the ‘granddaddy’ of this Lordship Salvation movement, and Piper is like the rock star right now who everybody looks up to and can’t wait for his next book to be printed. And here’s what he says about saving faith: ‘these are just some of the conditions that the New Testament says we must meet in order to be saved in the fullest and final sense. We must believe in Jesus and receive Him, and turn from our sin and obey Him, and humble ourselves like little children, and love Him more than we love our family, our possessions, or our own life. This is what it means to be converted to Christ, and this alone is the way of everlasting life.’ And let me tell you, did you get that? [Piper] added about seven more conditions, which are what? Human works [added] to the simple gospel. Paul was asked in the book of Acts, chapter 16:30-31 by the Philippian jailer right out, as clear as the nose on your face: ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And he was told: ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,’ period! You see? […] John Piper’s got a big church, a big ministry, he speaks at a lot of conferences, has a lot of influence over millions of Christians, but he’s an apostate! He is preaching another gospel. He may have done good things in the past, but listen: he is now leading people astray! Because if you follow that plan of salvation: you will wind up in what? Hell! Obeying Christ and following Christ and giving up your possessions and loving God more than your family: that’s part of what? Discipleship! But that has nothing to do with being what? Saved! You get the picture? It’s another gospel! Then there’s the other fellow MacArthur: John MacArthur. And listen to some of the things he’s said. And this is nothing more than a counterfeit gospel. And Satan loves to what? Take that which is what? The truth, right? And then replace it with his counterfeit that looks a lot and sounds a lot like the what? The truth. That’s why the Bible says there’s ‘another gospel’ [Gal. 1:6] and ‘another Jesus’ [2 Cor. 11:4]. But it’s not the true gospel and the true Jesus. And we’ve been warned [not to] be led away from the simplicity that is in who? Christ! [Not to be led] away from the simple gospel message of the grace of God received by faith alone in Christ alone. MacArthur says this: he defines faith. He says ‘faith consists of a firm conviction….’ Pretty good right there. But then he says, ‘…and a personal surrender, and conduct and behavior inspired by the surrender.’ Now did you get that? He went from a ‘firm conviction’ which is faith, to adding what? Personal surrender and conduct, or lifestyle or behavior that’s inspired by that surrender. According to MacArthur, faith includes your behavior: your conduct, your performance, your works. That is another gospel! Faith is simply belief. […] Now listen, I want you to know something: this is two different gospels. The church is divided today. And we’re supposed to love our brethren, but listen. When it comes to something as important as this, you have to expose the heresy, the apostasy, and the lies. Because the very truth of Christianity is at stake! And these men need to repent of their sin of preaching a false gospel and bringing the church into bondage! Of legalism! And it is denying the Lord. They think that they’re the ones honoring the Lord, and in fact they’re the ones who are what? Insulting the grace of God. MacArthur also says, ‘The gospel says give your life to Christ and let Him rule it. Coming to Christ means giving up control of your life.’ No it doesn’t. That’s discipleship. Salvation is what? Believe! […] MacArthur also says, ‘Salvation is the result of a life lived in obedience and service to Christ.’ You wonder how a man could read the Bible and teach for so many years, at one point be used of God, and then preach this garbage! That’s what it is: it’s Satanic! It is works-salvation. Listen to what MacArthur says. And he’s written three or four books on the subject: Hard To Believe, The Gospel According to Jesus, and a few other ones. [MacArthur says:] ‘Salvation is the result of a life lived in obedience and service to Christ. It is the fruit of actions not intentions. The life we live, not the words we speak, determines our eternal destiny.’ Totally wrong! None of that’s right. It has nothing to do with the words we speak or the life we live. It’s what we believe about Jesus that determines our eternal destiny. [The Bible says:] ‘he that believeth on the Son is not condemned, he that believeth not is condemned already.’ [Jn. 3:18.] And folks, listen. You will hear these men on the radio. You will be exposed to them in your travels as you meet other Christians. You need to know this right off the bat, so that you will ‘not fall from your own steadfastness.’ [2 Pet. 3:17.] The best defense against error is to know the truth. […] MacArthur, Piper, Washer, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, the Hollywood star, he’s caught up in this, […] R. C. Sproul, David Platt, Driscoll, and on down the line: they’re all what? Calvinists, they all believe in the TULIP theology, and they preach this ‘Lordship Salvation’. MacArthur also said, listen to this, when you present the gospel, ‘you are calling people to turn from their sin and follow Christ.’ No you are not. You are not calling people to turn from their sin [in the sense of a change of behavior]. You are calling people to ‘believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ’ [Acts 16:31]. And when the Bible uses the word repent, all that word repent means is metanoia in the Greek, a change of mind: a change from unbelief to belief. That’s all it means. They have taken [the word] repent, which means simply a change of mind, and turned it into the Catholic doctrine of penance! Meaning you have to do these things to prove you have faith. That is not the gospel! Now I hope that you see this. We are saved by believing in Christ and in Him alone; we grow by surrendering our life, by obeying Him, by following Him, by serving Him. We’ll be rewarded for doing those things. But those things have nothing to do with getting into what? Heaven! And listen: you know why it’s so popular? Because religion is ingrained in human beings.”[4]

It reminds me of how Martin Luther, before he came to understand salvation by Free Grace, climbed up the long staircase of the Scala Sancta on his knees, angry at God that “He still further increased our torment by the gospel.”[5] But then God’s grace burst through to Luther’s conscience, as he remembered the great words of the Apostle Paul when he said: “But he who is righteous by faith shall live” (Rom. 1:17). In other words, “He who is righteous by faith, he whose righteousness is rooted in faith (not in works), shall live,’—the emphasis being not so much upon the source of his life as upon the source of his righteousness.”[6]

In contrast to this, the teaching of Lordship Salvation is a distortion of the grace of God because it redefines faith to mean something more than simply accepting the free gift of eternal life (Rom. 6:23). According to MacArthur and other Lordship proponents, an up-front commitment of life and even a change of lifestyle is also required in order for a person to be “rewarded” with salvation. While such behavior is a natural and expected result of salvation, it should never been imposed upon the unsaved as a requirement for salvation. Thus, Lordship Salvationists essentially “put the cart before the horse” by imposing upon the unsaved something that is actually a requirement for Christian growth and sanctification. This is how Lordship Salvation subtly adds in works to “faith alone”. 

Commenting on a review of MacArthur’s book The Gospel According to Jesus that was written some years ago by John W. Robbins of The Trinity Foundation, Manfred Kober points out what both he and Robbins have concluded: that Lordship Salvation is essentially a return to the Roman Catholic view of faith! Regarding this Kober writes: “Robbins offers a critique of MacArthur’s book from a Reformed perspective. He correctly observes that ‘MacArthur attacks justification by faith alone and suggests that works be understood as part of faith.’ He thus ‘rejects the Biblical view of justification and adopts the Roman Catholic view’ (Part 1, pp. 1, 2).”[7] Although MacArthur seems to have changed some of his views related to justification to conform more to the Protestant understanding of it, MacArthur has not changed his views on saving faith. In an article titled “John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation,” Ron DiGiacomo points out the following: “It completely escapes MacArthur that personal commitment and forsaking of life are true works of righteousness, which are fruits of sanctification and not elements of faith. What MacArthur also misses is that justifying faith is merely an instrument through which the unrighteous lays hold of Christ’s righteousness. (Westminster Shorter Catechism #73) Not only does MacArthur add works to justifying faith, he leaves out the crowning element of justifying faith, which is child like trust in the perfect righteousness of Another. But it is worse than that. Much worse. Not only does MacArthur add works to faith while leaving out trust, he would have us believe that the traditional view of trust (often referred to as fiducia) is not reliance upon Christ but rather surrender. [MacArthur says:] “This ‘trust,’ or fiducia, faith’s volitional component, is the crowning element of believing. It involves surrender to the object of faith.” Faith Works, The Gospel According To The Apostles, p. 44. In essence, MacArthur takes the volitional component of justifying faith, fiducia, and turns it into something other than mere child like trust in the righteousness of Christ. MacArthur redefines trust. For MacArthur fiducia is not to exercise trust in Christ’s alien righteousness but rather it is the work of bringing to Christ our own righteous deeds in the form of forsaking of oneself, commitment, and surrender.”[8] DiGiancomo summarizes by saying: “That is Rome, not Westminster.”[9] DiGiancomo goes on to point out: “It’s my understanding that MacArthur may have repented of his views of Justification, just like he repented of his denial of the eternal Sonship of the Second Person of the Trinity. He has not yet recanted on the nature of justifying faith, however. If anything, he has doubled down.”[10] 

 

For more information see the article by Paul Holloway titled “A Return to Rome: Lordship Salvation’s Doctrine of Faith”.[11]

 

 

References:

[1] “Oxford movement.” Britannica (accessed July 30, 2023).

[2] Lewis Sperry Chafer, “The Terms of Salvation.” Bibliotheca Sacra (Oct-Dec 1950), pp. 406-407.  (accessed July 30, 2023). Cf. Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols., vol. 3, pp. 385-386.

[3] John MacArthur, Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), p. 229.

[4] John Ricci, “Assurance of Salvation: False Gospels” (November 1, 2013) Grace Christian Fellowship channel, YouTube.  (accessed July 30, 2023).

[5] Martin Luther, quoted by J. H. Merle D’Aubigne, Henry Beveridge, Translator, History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century (Glasgow: 1845), vol. 1, p. 148.

[6] John Edgar McFadyen, The Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians (New York: A. S. Barnes & Company, 1909), p. 239, comment on Galatians 3:11-12.

[7] Manfred E. Kober, “Lordship Salvation: A Forgotten Truth or a False Doctrine?” p. 16. Note: In the article by John W. Robbins, Robbins points out the connection between Cardinal John Henry Newman and John MacArthur. This is significant because John Henry Newman was one of the founders of The Oxford Movement. Robbins actually says that MacArthur is the “unwitting disciple” of Newman! For more information see the article by John W. Robbins, “The Gospel According to John MacArthur” (April-June 1993), The Trinity Review, p. 3.

[8] Ron DiGiacomo, “John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation” (August 20, 2020), Philosophical Theology blog, emphasis his.

[9] Ibid.

 

[10] Ibid.  

[11] Paul Holloway, “A Return to Rome: Lordship Salvation’s Doctrine of Faith.” The Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Autumn 1991).

Is Assurance the “Sine Qua Non” of Saving Faith?

A reader recently sent me an email asking for answers about assurance of salvation. The reader’s questions are reprinted here by permission, with my responses following. I hope this Q & A will be helpful for others who may be struggling with questions about assurance:

“Is assurance the ‘sine qua non’ of saving faith as they say? If so, then doesn’t that mean that being saved and having doubts about one’s salvation are mutually exclusive? If a person has doubts, then did they ever truly believe? How does Hebrews 11:1 fit into this? Is a person who doubts just a person who never fully believed? What of Calvinists who believe you can’t have absolute assurance? Are they lost? And secondly, and somewhat related to this, Bob Wilkin insists on the belief in eternal security in order for a person to be saved. He has a lot of things to back it up, of course. Do you agree with him? Are all Arminians lost then? If someone believed they were saved before they came to believe in eternal security, were they mistaken? I know many Calvinists and Arminians whom I genuinely believe to be saved. Some of them are very dear friends and even family. Am I compromising the truth because of my love for them?”

 

I don’t fully agree with the Grace Evangelical Society’s view of saving faith and assurance. We see examples in the Bible of people who doubted: when John the Baptist was in prison he doubted if Jesus was the Messiah (Matt. 11:1-6). Thomas doubted that Jesus had risen from the dead (Jn. 20:24-25), hence the name “doubting Thomas”. Different people doubted; I think of the man in the Gospel accounts who said, “Lord I believe, help my unbelief!” (Mk. 9:24). So my view of saving faith is that a moment of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ will save someone’s soul for eternity. Even if it’s only “faith as a mustard seed”! It’s the object of faith that is the key, not how strong or weak my faith is. I think though that some of the Reformers taught that assurance is the essence of faith. Don’t quote me on that but in some of my research I came across some statements by Luther and possibly others and it seemed like that’s what they were saying. But I don’t fully agree with that view. I would say I agree with it but with caveats. For example, I agree that faith is being “fully persuaded” of something, as Paul says in Romans 4:21. But I don’t take that to mean that a person can’t have doubts along the way. The way I understand it (and God knows a person’s heart), is that if at any time even for a second they trust Christ (as the hymn says, “there’s life for a look at the Crucified One”): that’s saving faith! It doesn’t have to be a long drawn-out thing, it can be momentary faith; or why can’t it be? The fact of doubt, I think, shows this to be true. Because otherwise you’d have to say that ANY doubt nullifies saving faith, which I think is absurd. I mean, who would say that a true Christian never doubts? Maybe some people say that; I don’t think I’ve heard anyone say that. Like I said, I see examples in the Bible of believers who had real doubts in matters of faith, even about Christ and/or things that Christ said (see Matt. 11:1-6; Matt. 14:31; Mk. 16:14; Jn. 20:24-25).

So you asked about Hebrews 11:1, and the way I understand it is that yes, it is being assured of what God has said, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be an ongoing or never-ending assurance. It can be, I would say, a momentary assurance: that initial assurance or faith in Christ is saving faith! That’s how I understand it. And then if there are doubts after that, there are doubts. I think everyone has doubts, or I would think most people or at least a lot of people do. That doesn’t mean they’re not saved, it just means they’re human. I mean, if John the Baptist doubted, if the apostles doubted, you can’t get any better humanly speaking than that unless you’re God Himself! Jesus even said in regards to John the Baptist that there is no one born of a woman greater in the kingdom of God than John the Baptist (Matt. 11:11), and he doubted Christ! I mean think about it. He doubted whether or not Jesus really was the Messiah. While John was in prison he sent word to Jesus to ask Him, “Is it you or should I look for someone else?” Matthew records John the Baptist saying: “Are Thou He that should come, or do we look for another?" (Matt. 11:2-3). I just want to quote Lewis Sperry Chafer because he has a good thought that I’ve liked ever since the first time I read it. In his book Salvation, Chafer asks the question (p. 112): “What if a believer’s faith should fail?” To which Chafer gives the following very insightful answer: “Faith, it may be answered, is not meritorious. We are not saved because we possess the saving virtue of faith. We are saved through faith, and because of the grace of God. Incidentally faith is the only possible response of the heart to that grace. Saving faith is an act: not an attitude. Its work is accomplished when its object has been gained.” So that’s an excellent and very well-said statement regarding saving faith, and faith in general. And what I said goes right along with that: i.e. that it’s that initial and possibly even momentary and possibly even dare I say fleeting faith in Christ that secures for us the free gift of eternal life. It’s not my strong faith, it’s not my ongoing faith, it’s not my never-doubting faith, it’s my possibly small-as-a-mustard-seed-faith, that single and simple act of faith, if it be in the Right and True Object of Faith, namely the Lord Jesus Christ, that secures for me all the blessings of salvation! Praise the Lord!

I know you also asked about Bob Wilkin and if I agree with him that a person has to believe in eternal security to be saved. No, I don’t quite take that view. Wilkin equates “eternal life” with “eternal security”. Of course the two things are related, but they are not quite the same. Eternal life is the fact, eternal security is the result or the corollary to that. The Bible says “eternal life”: that’s the promise of God. Whether or not a person understands that as implying eternal security is another step along the way, I would say. It’s like when the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures”. Well, the meaning of course is that Christ died for ALL our sins, that’s what the Scriptures teach and that is what Paul means since he doesn’t qualify it or specify otherwise. So that’s the gospel, or at least the heart of it: the heart of the gospel. But whether or not a person believes or understands that to specifically mean “eternal security” is another question. Eternal security is the logical conclusion of the fact that if Christ died for all my sins, then that means that no sin can ever cause me to lose my salvation. But that realization or understanding is an extrapolation or a deduction based on the facts of the gospel. You see the difference? Eternal security is not explicitly stated, that’s the logical or we could probably even say the obvious conclusion, but it’s not explicitly stated. A person has to extrapolate that out. A person has to take the next logical step to get to that conclusion. Wilkin says, no a person has to understand that up front. Well, why? Where is believing in specifically “eternal security” ever made a requirement in the Bible or even in the Gospel of John? Wilkin says, well because Jesus says He gives “eternal life”. Okay, but that just proves my point that He didn’t say “eternal security”. Wilkin says, well a person has to understand or interpret it as meaning “eternal security”. Well, that’s writing John’s Gospel, not interpreting it. John used the words “eternal life” and a person has to believe that, not necessarily understand all the implications of that, nor even fully understand what that all means. Lewis Sperry Chafer affirms that: “A man who refuses to believe anything that he does not understand will have a very short creed.” (Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, p. 75.)  Does a person have to pass an exam in theology to get saved? Wilkin is the one who calls us (traditional Free Grace people) the “theological legalists” because we teach that the required content of saving faith is to not only believe in the person of Christ but also His work (1 Cor. 15:3 ff). But now it seems that Wilkin is being the “theological legalist” by requiring people to pass “Basic Theology 101” in order to get to heaven! It’s like you give them a test with one question and ask them: How do you interpret the phrase “eternal life”? There’s one right answer and if you get it right then you can go to heaven, but if you get it wrong then sorry you go to hell. And the right answer according to Wilkin is “eternal security”. Excuse me, anybody see a problem with that? That’s reading your preconceived theological viewpoint into the text, that’s what’s called eisegesis. The proper way to interpret the Bible is called exegesis: getting the meaning out of the text. But eisegesis is reading your own views into the text. That’s backwards! “Eternal life” means exactly what it says: “eternal life”. Wilkin wants to redefine it to mean “eternal security” but that’s not what Jesus said. And the troubling thing about what Wilkin is doing is he’s not just redefining “eternal life”, but he also has redefined other biblical terms such as “Christ”, “repentance”, and “salvation”. To Wilkin, the term “Christ” doesn’t mean “Son of God” (as in John 20:31), but instead Wilkin says it means “Guarantor of eternal life”. And Wilkin says repentance doesn’t mean “to change one’s mind” but instead it means (according to Wilkin), “turn from sins” or in other words, “get in harmony with God”. And “salvation” according to Wilkin is no longer in reference to justification, but it only has to do with sanctification and deliverance for Christians. So again, anyone see a problem here?? Wilkin is reading his preconceived theological bias or viewpoint into the biblical text and coming up with these new meanings. That is not proper hermaneutics; that’s not proper Bible interpretation. So I think it helps to see the big picture of what Wilkin is doing because he’s basically twisting Scripture. We have to be careful about that.

I know you also asked about Calvinists and Arminians and if they are saved. I wouldn’t want to make a hasty generalization or jump to conclusions. I think it would be wrong to make a blanket statement and say they’re all going to hell. I mean, I think common sense indicates otherwise. For example, I’d say that some Roman Catholics are saved in spite of the fact that they are Roman Catholic. I’ve personally met some saved Roman Catholics. They believe salvation is by grace apart from works, they just don’t want to leave the Roman Catholic church for whatever reason. One lady I met didn’t want to leave the Roman Catholic Church because she thought she had more of a ministry to people in the Church by being in the Church herself. I met another person, he was a Roman Catholic, and he believed in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone; and he of course disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church on that. But he didn’t want to leave the Church because he had grown up in it and to him it was what he was familiar with all his life; and he was apparently enamored by the tradition and nostalgia of it. So his reasons were sentimental. If I remember correctly, I think he also said that he felt he’d be a better witness to Roman Catholics by being inside the Church. We talked about it at length on several different occasions, and I believe he’s a saved man. I don’t agree with him about staying in the Church, but I believe he’s a saved man. A Christian friend of mine, a brother in Christ, also talked with him about it and came to the same conclusion: that this man is saved in spite of the fact that he’s a Roman Catholic. So I think we can’t just make a hasty generalization, but we have to take everyone on a case-by-case basis. So that’s how I would answer your question in regards to anyone who is a Calvinist or an Arminian. It’s not as simple as that, there’s more to it than that; it’s deeper than merely asking the question: Are you a Calvinist? Or, Are you an Arminian? Or, Are you a Roman Catholic? The real question is: Who or what are you trusting in for salvation? Or, Was there ever a time in your life when you did trust in Christ alone apart from works? And to answer those questions we have to consider each person individually and evaluate each situation on a case-by-case or individual basis. So that’s how I would approach it and look at it and that’s how I would answer your question about that. I hope that helps. God Bless!

By His Grace,

Jonathan

Book Review: "What Is Saving Faith?" by John Piper

Although Piper’s book is titled What Is Saving Faith?, after reading it I would say that it should instead be titled: The Poetic Speculations of a Calvinist. I say this because Piper begins with his theological belief system of Calvinism and then looks for proof-texts to support it. Since the Bible does not teach Calvinism, Piper uses a contrived and complicated set of arguments to twist the Bible to line up with what he already believes. Piper’s method of Bible interpretation is not exegetical; he mainly just quotes the Puritan Reformed theologians and other Calvinists. What Is Saving Faith? is religious poetry, not exegesis! The thought that came to mind as I read Piper’s book is when the Bible says, “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” (Job 38:2), “teaching as doctrines the precepts of men” (Matt. 15:9; Mk. 7:7). It’s very revealing (though not surprising) that in the Introduction of his book: on the very first page, in the first few sentences, Piper appeals to “John Calvin” and a handful of other Calvinists before ever mentioning Jesus Christ or the Word of God! Piper even presses the issue by saying: “My perception is that millions of people who say they have saving faith would hear these voices as though they were a foreign language.” (p. 12). Yes, and I wonder why? Maybe it’s because those voices don’t accurately represent what the Bible teaches on the subject!

Although Piper’s book is generally very weak biblically and exegetically, there were a few things that I appreciated about it: (1) Piper seems to be honest and forthright. (But it’s important to remember that a person can be sincere, yet sincerely wrong.) (2) The book is well organized. (3) Piper attempts to answer some Free Grace objections (but not convincingly). (4) Piper’s definition of repentance is at times relatively good, in that he correctly distinguishes between repentance, which he identifies as a change of mind and heart, and the fruit of repentance, which is behavior change (pp. 241-249). (5) Piper presents a non-Calvinistic view of John 3:16 (p. 223). Commenting on John 3:16, Piper says: “This message is valid and this offer is sincere to every person on the planet.” Although this statement is true, it is quite baffling that Piper would say this considering his Calvinistic view of the Atonement (he believes in “Limited Atonement”), and also his views on predestination and election. After doing a little research, I found that the way Piper explains it is to say, “the reason this is so is that Christ purchased a full and complete and effective and eternal, infallible salvation for the bride of Christ, and everyone who believes [read: who is forced to believe] is part of that bride.” (Piper, “Isn’t Unlimited Atonement More Glorious Than Limited Atonement?” Desiring God website.) So in reality it’s double-talk: although Piper says John 3:16 is valid for everyone on the planet, he thinks it’s really only valid for the elect. (6) There are times when Piper almost sounds like a Free Grace advocate (pp. 206-207, 220-223). But beware lest he beguile you with his subtlety; he speaks with a forked tongue! For more information see the YouTube video titled: “John Piper Is a Wicked False Teacher”. (7) Piper does have several good illustrations in his book (pp. 17-18, 110).

Unfortunately the weaknesses of Piper’s book far outweigh any positive aspects of it. Piper basically twists the Scriptures to conform to his Calvinistic presuppositions regarding saving faith, and if I were to give even a cursory response to each and every instance where Piper engages in this, this review would possibly be longer than the book itself! So in the interest of time, I will simply highlight some key examples that are representative of his views. Piper’s main premise in the book is that people have to treasure Christ in order to be saved. What exactly does Piper mean by this? Under the heading “Treasuring Is Not Just One Thing” (p. 18), Piper says: “I use the term treasuring Christ as my default summary expression of the affectional nature of saving faith” (p. 18). Piper goes on to explain: “When I say that treasuring Christ is my summary expression of the affectional nature of saving faith, I mean to imply that there are diverse affections in the nature of saving faith, not just one” (p. 19). A repeated theme throughout Piper’s book is that he attempts to read the idea of treasuring Christ into simple gospel invitations, such as when Jesus says, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). Commenting on this, Piper says: “There is treasuring like the satisfying of hunger, because Christ is the bread of life” (p. 19). But how is that treasuring? That’s eating! To say that eating is “treasuring” is to write John’s Gospel, not interpret it. Piper is reading too much of his preconceived theology into the text. That’s eisegesis (reading one’s own theology into the biblical text), not exegesis (getting one’s theology out of the text). Piper goes on to say, “There is treasuring like the pleasure of quenched thirst, because Christ is the fountain of living water (John 4:10-11).” Piper concludes by saying, “So it is in the way Christ is received by saving faith” (p. 19). But notice that in both examples, wouldn’t the supposed “treasuring” be the result (not the means) of salvation? For hunger is not satisfied until after eating, and thirst is not quenched until after drinking. The eating and drinking correlate to saving faith; the satisfaction and quenching are the result of it. Piper is conflating the result of salvation (what he calls “treasuring Christ”) with the means of salvation: faith alone in Christ alone. Just to be clear, I’m not even saying that I agree that “treasuring Christ” is the result of salvation (although I would say it could be and no doubt should be); I’m just pointing out that Piper’s reasoning is flawed. Amazingly, Piper actually goes on to admit that satisfaction and joy are the effects, not the means, of believing! Concerning this Piper says: “Believing is the heart’s coming to Jesus in such a way that the soul finds the end of its quest for satisfaction. I use the word satisfaction because, even though Jesus said his aim was their joy (John 15:11; 17:13), we don’t usually describe the EFFECT of water and bread as joy. We say of a cold drink on a hot day, ‘That was satisfying.’ That is the analogy Jesus used” (p. 203, emphasis added). So here Piper admits that the satisfaction and joy are the effects of believing, not part of the believing itself. I also want to point out that John 15:11 and John 17:13 are clearly in reference to believers, but that doesn’t stop Piper from front-loading these statements into his gospel to unbelievers!

Examples of this type of Scripture-twisting abound in Piper’s book. To cite another example, Piper cleverly twists the meaning of the word “assurance” (Gr. hupostasis) in Hebrews 11:1. Piper takes it in the philosophical sense to mean “the same as”, or “the substance or reality of”. Commenting on Hebrews 11:1 & 12:2, Piper says: “What this means for our question is this: when we embrace a hoped-for joy by faith, that joy becomes a substantial element or dimension of our faith, because faith is the substance of things hoped for” (p. 170). Piper is trying to prove that “hoped-for joy” is a part of saving faith. To do this, Piper makes a future benefit (“hoped-for joy”) part of faith itself! Piper justifies it by saying that “faith is the substance of things hoped for.” But in this context faith is obviously the means, not the end. Commenting on Hebrews 11:1, the NT Greek scholar Henry Alford affirms: “There is no ground whatever for saying that our Writer [i.e. the writer of Hebrews] makes faith identical with hope. Faith is the ὑπόστασις [assurance] of ἐλπιζόμενα [things hoped for]: Hope exists independently of it, but derives its reality, and is ripened into confidence, by its means.” So once again, Piper is conflating or confusing the means with the end. Related to this Piper asks the question: “How can the substance of hoped-for joy not itself be joy?” (p. 119). Piper goes on to conclude: “Saving Faith Is the Substance of Hoped-For Joy” (p. 167). But let’s ask Piper’s question more accurately: “How can the hupostasis [assurance] of hoped-for joy [i.e. future joy] not itself be joy?” That’s what Piper is really asking. And my answer is simple: because believing something is different than the thing itself. Having faith in something is different than the thing itself. It’s like saying I believe you will give me $100, but that doesn’t mean I have $100! Maybe I will; maybe I won’t. It depends on how trustworthy the person is who promised it. But either way, the faith is not the $100. Faith and the thing hoped-for are two different things. The same is true if we define hupostasis to mean “title deed” (e.g. Robertson, Word Pictures). Faith is the title deed for the house, but the title deed is not the house. For example, if you lost the title deed you can request to get a replacement; you have not lost the house. You may have lost the title deed, but you have not lost the house (cf. 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 10:23).

Another example of how Piper reads his preconceived theological viewpoint into the biblical text is when Piper says that “Jesus told a story to illustrate how it offends him when we fail to treasure him above the things of the world” (p. 20). Piper then quotes Luke 14:16-21, which is a parable that Jesus told about a certain man who gave a great banquet and invited many guests, but none of them wanted to come to the banquet. They all made excuses. What’s interesting is that nowhere in the parable does Jesus ever say anything about “failing to treasure him above the things of the world”! Jesus never mentions “treasure”! But that doesn’t stop Piper from reading it into the text anyway; he retells the parable in his own words: adding in the word “treasure” three times! Piper concludes by saying, “But for those who would not treasure the Master, judgment falls: ‘I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet’ (Luke 14:24).” But this is a blatant example of eisegesis: reading one’s own preconceived theological bias into the text, not getting the meaning out of the text. Piper’s motto should be: “I’ve made up my mind. Don’t bother me with the facts.” The truth is, what Jesus emphasizes in the parable is the invitation to “come” (vv. 17, 20, 23). Herbert Lockyer in his classic book All the Parables of the Bible, says that “the real truth was, they did not want to go. They typify those Jews Jesus spoke of, ‘Ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life.’ [Jn. 5:40.]” This is the biblical reason why they did not come, and Piper completely misses it!

Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of what Piper does throughout his entire book. He basically reads “treasure” into every gospel invitation. Regardless of what the Bible actually says, according to Piper we should just read into it the idea of “treasure”. If the biblical word is “believe”, we should read “treasure”. If the word is “receive”, we should read “treasure”. If the word is “come”, we should read “treasure”. The same is true in regards to repentance. Although Piper does say some things that are true concerning biblical repentance, he unfortunately puts it all under the heading: “Repentance Is the Reversal of What We Treasure”. Piper knows that this is not the true meaning of the biblical word for repentance (Gr. metanoia), because he goes on to give the actual meaning correctly several pages later when he says: “Repentance is the change of mind and heart moving from unbelief to belief” (p. 249). Unfortunately he embellishes that definition, which is typical of Reformed theologians.
 

I also noticed that Piper misrepresents Lewis Sperry Chafer in regards to Chafer’s view of repentance (p. 31). Piper quotes the statement by Chafer when he says, “The New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a condition for salvation” (Systematic Theology, vol. 3, p. 376). But Piper is taking Chafer’s statement quite out of context. When Chafer’s statement is read in context (and in light of his other statements on repentance), his statement should be understood to mean: “The NT does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a [separate] condition for salvation” in addition to faith in Christ: because repentance is included in believing. This is what Chafer believed and taught. For more information and specific quotes see my article titled “The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians” (Free Grace Free Speech, May 28, 2021). See under the heading: “Lewis Sperry Chafer”.

Piper likewise misrepresents Charles Ryrie on repentance (p. 31). Piper says that “The Ryrie Study Bible calls repentance a ‘false addition to faith’ when made a condition of salvation”. The truth is, what Ryrie actually says is just the opposite! Ryrie begins by affirming: “Repentance. This is a valid condition for salvation when understood as a synonym for faith.” Then Ryrie goes on to say: “It is a false addition to faith when understood as a prerequisite, requiring the cleansing of the life in order to be saved.” (Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible [Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute, 1978], p. 1950.) Piper is twisting Ryrie’s statement and taking it completely out of context! Rightly did the apostle Paul warn of false teachers such as Piper, who “by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting” (Rom. 16:18).

 

In reading through Piper’s book, what I noticed is that he repeatedly confuses Christian-life truth with how to be born again (pp. 122-126, 140-141, 155-162, 167-169). In his attempt to prove that saving faith means receiving Christ as our supreme treasure, Piper conflates salvation with discipleship. This is a common error among Reformed theologians. For example, commenting on Matthew 10:37, Luke 14:33, and Philippians 3:8 (which are clearly describing discipleship/Christian-life truth), Piper says: “This book is an argument that such texts are describing dimensions of saving faith” (p. 21; cf. pp. 31, 69, 145, 146, 160, 229-234). This is interesting, especially because Piper also says: “Experience teaches us to probe for distinctions” (p. 17). In light of this statement one wonders why Piper does not probe for the distinction between salvation and discipleship? It’s unfortunate that he completely misses this biblical distinction because it would clear up a lot of his false teaching on the gospel. Indeed, the apostle Paul instructs believers in exactly this duty when he says, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15, KJV).

What Piper does in his book is that he basically says that saving faith will have “virtuous affections” in it or else it’s not genuine saving faith. The virtues required by Piper in order for a person to get saved are the following; that is to say, a person’s faith must have at least some or all of the following: holiness, goodness, delight, gladness, happiness, love, joy, admiration, adoration, treasuring, cherishing, satisfaction, thankfulness, revering, and the list goes on and on (pp. 12, 34, 47, 51, 70, 85-86, 117-119, 179-188, 253, etc.). Piper calls these “virtuous affectional elements” (pp. 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55). According to Piper’s view, these are not additions to faith but “faith itself includes virtuous affectional elements” (p. 47). Piper is quick to point out however, that these are not the ground of our justification. But he says that if faith doesn’t have these elements then it’s not saving faith. But what does the Bible say? According to 2 Peter 1:5-9, the apostle Peter instructs believers to “add to your faith virtue, to virtue, knowledge, to knowledge, self-control, to self-control, perseverance, to perseverance, godliness, to godliness, brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness, love” (vv. 5-7). Thus it’s clear that these virtues are distinct from faith itself. For if they are to supplement, or to be added to faith, then they are obviously distinct from faith itself. These virtues are clearly the fruits of faith, not faith itself. Peter affirms this when he goes on to say in the very next verse, “For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful” (v. 8), obviously implying that faith itself can be “useless” and “unfruitful”. Piper’s view is in contrast to this. Piper says that faith is not genuine saving faith if it does not include these virtues. But as the apostle Paul says, “Let God be true, and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). Piper has a false view of saving faith because it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture: that faith can be “useless” and “unfruitful”. That doesn’t mean it’s not faith; that just means it’s not “fruitful”. The corollary to this is that Piper’s view of saving faith is in reality salvation by virtue. Because although he says that these virtues are not the ground of our justification (thus he can claim that his view is distinct from Roman Catholicism), yet in his view these virtues must still be there for salvation to occur. So it’s double-talk. The bottom line is that according to Piper, a person can’t be saved if they don’t have these virtues. That’s salvation by virtue however you look at it. Apparently seeing the obvious conflict with justification by faith alone, Piper is quick to say: “Such faith does not undermine justification by faith alone, because God does not have respect to any virtuousness of the affectional aspects of faith [then why does Piper require it?], but only to faith as ‘uniting us to Christ,’ who is the sole ground of our right standing with God” (p. 54). But Piper’s statement is merely equivocation, because he still requires some or all of these virtues for salvation. How are we to take such tortuous reasoning seriously?

In order to preempt the obvious objection, Piper presents a straw-man argument related to Romans 4:5, saying: “The fact that faith may have an affectional dimension does not prove that justification then would be by works, or on the basis of our virtue” (pp. 52-53). But actually it does prove that justification would be on the basis of our virtue if the Bible distinguishes between faith and the “virtuous affectional elements” (i.e. the spiritual fruit): which it does (see 2 Pet. 1:5-9; cf. Gal. 5:22). Piper is a legalistic fruit inspector, so much so, in fact, that he has now made it an up-front condition for justification! But notice that Piper merely says “that faith MAY have an affectional dimension” (emphasis added). This admission by Piper disproves the entire premise of his book which is that (as he has stated), “for trust to be saving, it MUST be a treasuring trust” (p. 59). So which is it? The Bible says, “A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways” (James 1:8).

Piper also promotes the gospel of “lordship salvation” (pp. 29-34, 67, 153, 285). Piper says saving faith is “demanding” (p. 37). Piper redefines faith (pp. 59, 90, 134). Piper says: “I do not discount or diminish the importance of real allegiance to King Jesus. No one will be saved without it” (p. 85). Piper says he read John MacArthur’s The Gospel According to Jesus, “like a miser finding gold” (p. 30). Piper says, “I could scarcely put it down for joy” (p. 30). Someone please tell Piper that “not all that glitters is gold”! “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, and his ministers as servants of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:14-15). Lewis Sperry Chafer has well said: “Satan’s life-purpose is to be ‘like the Most High’ (Isa. 14:14), and he appears ‘as an angel of light,’ and his ministers ‘as the ministers of righteousness’ (2 Cor. 11:13-15). His ministers, being ministers of righteousness, preach a gospel of reformation and salvation by human character, rather than salvation by grace alone, unrelated to any human virtue.” (Lewis Sperry Chafer, He That Is Spiritual, 1918 Edition, p. 101.)

Piper argues that the biblical terms faith, belief, and trust are inadequate and ambiguous (pp. 17-18). Piper says that these terms “contain ambiguities that need clarification” (p. 18). Piper says this because these biblical terms do not line up with Piper’s requirements for salvation. So Piper has to clarify the biblical terms, which means that he needs to infuse them with his so-called “virtuous affectional elements” added in to faith itself. It’s very clever though, because by redefining faith to include virtues such as love, and joy, and delight, Piper can still claim that salvation is “by faith alone”. Of course, it is “faith alone” in name only, but it gives a veneer of legitimacy to Piper’s twisting of Scripture. 

 

Piper is a modern-day Pharisee & a self-righteous legalist (see Luke 15:1-10). This becomes evident when Piper describes how, over the course of forty years, he has talked with hundreds of different people in his inner-city neighborhood, and he basically says in so many words that his neighbors are not good enough to be saved! Piper says: “One of the reasons I am writing this book is that many people ‘receive Christ’ as a sin forgiver [!] because they treasure being guilt-free, not because they treasure Christ. Many people receive him as a rescuer from hell [!] because they treasure being pain-free, not because they treasure Christ. […] I have spoken to hundreds of people in this neighborhood about Christ. And I think I could count on one hand the number of people who have denied Christ. They have all ‘received him.’ Chronically drunk people have received him. Drug dealers have received him. Prostitutes have received him. This kind of ‘receiving’ of Christ is not a joy that I celebrate; it is a heartache that I bemoan” (p. 139). This I find interesting because the Bible says that the angels in heaven rejoice when people like this get saved (Lk. 15:7, 10), yet Piper says he bemoans it! The truth is, no one is good enough to be saved! The Bible says, “all our righteous deeds are like filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6). Yet Piper makes it sound like people have to clean up their lives in order to be saved. But if we could be good enough then we wouldn’t need Christ, for “if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died for nothing” (Gal. 2:21). Piper goes on to say that receiving Christ is a “reward” (p. 162). Piper says heaven is a “reward” (p. 176). Piper says final salvation is a “reward” (pp. 177). Piper says “never thirsting again” (from John 7:37-38) is a “reward” (p. 202). Piper implies that we buy salvation (pp. 143-146); he tries to explain it away by saying, “The point is not that you can buy Christ” (p. 145). Yet that is the logical conclusion of what Piper says. Elsewhere Piper overtly teaches works-salvation (p. 146); he twists the words of Jesus in Luke 18:22 about discipleship and applies them instead to salvation. Notice what Piper says: “In other words, if you value me [Jesus] enough to open your money-grasping fist and let the money fall from your hand onto the poor and put your hand in mine as your new treasure, you will indeed have a treasure forever in heaven—me. But if you value your possessions more than me, you won’t have me or eternal life” (p. 146). Apparently the unsaved must now give to the poor in order to have eternal life! How contrary to the biblical truth that says, “but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).

Piper is a Calvinist, and it comes through loud and clear in his book. For example: Piper teaches that regeneration precedes saving faith (pp. 26, 38, 127, 128, 131, 135, 157). This is a typical belief among Calvinists. Related to this Piper says, “You cannot decide not to see” (p. 157). Notice the double-negative in Piper’s statement. Piper is saying: God makes a person see; God forces a person to see. God regenerates them apart from the person having anything to do with it. In Piper’s view, when an unsaved person sees (spiritually), it is not something they do (i.e. it is not them believing): God makes them see, and according to Piper that is regeneration. And in Piper’s view regeneration precedes saving faith. But what Piper fails to mention is that a person can decide not to see! A person can close their eyes to the Light. A person can choose not to come to the Light. For example, in John 12:20-21 some Greeks came to Philip and said, “We wish to see Jesus.” Why didn’t others come? It is because as Jesus said to the unbelieving Jews, “you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life” (Jn. 5:40). Conversely, when Philip found Nathaniel and told him about Jesus, and Nathaniel said, “Can anything good be from Nazareth?” (Jn. 1:45-46), Philip said to him, “Come and see” (Jn. 1:46). And thus it is a volitional choice! Piper even admits: “Decisions are doable” (p. 252). Piper appeals to 1 John 5:1 as his proof-text that regeneration (being born-again) precedes faith. Piper quotes John R. Stott as an authority on the subject, but Stott is simply another Calvinist. Quoting another Calvinist is unconvincing; and furthermore, what he says does not prove the point. For more information on Piper’s interpretation of 1 John 5:1 and my response to it, see my article: “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?” (Free Grace Free Speech, July 14, 2022). Another Calvinistic belief that Piper promotes in his book is that saving faith is a gift of God (pp. 16, 25, 38, 78, 121, 127, 128, 131, 135, 164-165). But as Daniel Wallace has noted: “If faith is not meritorious, then it is not a gift per se.” (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 335, note 53.)  Piper also says that “Saving faith is...not an act of the will” (p. 121). Piper denies that there is any human responsibility involved in saving faith (p. 157). This is the Calvinistic doctrine of “Total Inability”. We can of course agree that saving faith is not meritorious and that it is distinguished from a good work (Rom. 4:4-5), but it is an act of the will: every time the verb believe occurs in the Gospel of John, it’s in the Greek active voice (not the passive voice), which means that the subject does the action; the individual believes! If what Piper is saying is true, the verb believe would be in the Greek passive voice: meaning that the subject is acted upon (this is the Calvinistic view of saving faith), yet this is never true of the verb believe in John’s Gospel. Norman Geisler points out how in the Garden of Eden after the Fall, though Adam and Eve were spiritually dead, they were nonetheless capable of hearing God’s voice and responding to God. For more information, see Geisler’s YouTube video titled: “Why I Am Not a Five Point Calvinist”. Piper also promotes the Calvinistic doctrine of “The Perseverance of the Saints” (pp. 121, 137, 141).

Piper’s method of Bible interpretation is a complex guessing game. Piper mainly quotes other Calvinists to prove or support his points, not primarily the Scriptures (pp. 57ff, 127, 135, 159, etc.). Thus it’s not surprising when Piper says: “Let’s start with John Calvin.” (p. 60). But quoting John Calvin and other Calvinists is not biblical exegesis (pp. 11, 31, 50-55, 60-71, 188, etc.). At times Piper seems to elevate these men on par with the Scriptures and even like unto God Himself! Such as when Piper says, “[Andrew] Fuller’s insight is foundational to my argument in this book. It is the light that guides us along” (pp. 54). That’s interesting because I always thought that the Bible was the light! “The entrance of Thy Word brings light” (Psa. 119:130). Piper goes on to say: “Andrew Fuller…became my guide” (p. 55). This is an alarming statement. Piper almost sounds like a necromancer channeling Andrew Fuller! Thus it’s not surprising to see how Piper puts an undue emphasis on a certain analogy presented by Fuller in which a mariner’s compass is used to explain saving faith. So once again Piper doesn’t present any biblical basis for his beliefs, just a quote about a compass! How are we as Bible-believing Christians to take this seriously? The Apostle Paul’s concern was: “For what does the Scripture say?” (Rom. 4:3; cf. Gal. 4:30). Where in the Bible do we ever find a mariner’s compass used to illustrate saving faith? I think nowhere. By way of contrast, the illustrations that we do see in the Bible that are used to picture saving faith are not that of a compass but rather are figures of speech such as: Receive (Jn. 1:12), Look (Jn. 3:14-15), Drink (Jn. 4:10, 14; 7:37), Come (Jn. 5:40, 6:35; 7:37), Enter (Jn. 10:9), and Eat (Jn. 6:54, 57). Piper’s compass illustration is actually self-refuting in that even Fuller admits: “whatever other properties faith MAY possess, it is as receiving Christ and bringing us into union with Him, that it justifies” (p. 52). Notice that Fuller didn’t say that saving faith must possess any other properties, but only that it “may”. This is a telling admission and it basically pokes a hole in Piper’s entire argument because it points out (no pun intended) that all that really matters in terms of saving faith is not whether it has any particular “affectional virtues” (as Piper says), but rather the key issue is simply “receiving Christ”! The Apostle John could scarcely have been clearer when he wrote: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name” (Jn. 12:12, NASB 95).

What I noticed throughout Piper’s book is that he repeatedly makes pronouncements but does not provide biblical exegesis to support his claims (pp. 149, 153, 193, 207, etc.). Piper often uses very flowery and at times almost nonsensical language to make his points; his book abounds in pseudo-biblical profundity (e.g. p. 151): that is, seemingly deep biblical insights but falsely so called (see 1 Tim. 6:20-21). Piper’s method of Bible interpretation consists mainly of assumptions (p. 18), guesses (p. 210), and conjecture (p. 230), not biblical exegesis: “a more exegetically thorough foundation [is needed]” (p. 34). Notice what Piper says: “Let’s start with John Calvin” (p. 60). Piper goes on to say, “we will be able to share the good news in simple and comprehensible ways with unbelievers” (p. 65). But then in the very next sentence Piper says, “In this spirit, I cite Witsius’s eight facets of saving faith”! Piper then spends the next several pages explaining Witsius’s eight facets of saving faith, during which time he does not quote more than a single Bible verse (2 Thess. 2:10), but rather, he waxes eloquent upon the words of his Puritan divine. How any of this is “simple and comprehensible” is mind-boggling. Piper also attempts to bolster his view by asking a loaded question saying, “how can this sight of the believer not be a treasuring, cherishing, admiring sight?” (p. 111). The “loaded question” is actually a logical fallacy, and is described as follows: “Loaded question, sometimes called a ‘complex question’, is a type of logical fallacy – an error in reasoning or a trick of thought used as a debate tactic. […] The loaded question fallacy is a question containing an implicit assumption – that is unverified or controversial”. Piper’s complex guessing game of Bible interpretation continues: “In other words” (p. 146), “[this] makes it extremely unlikely” (p. 154), “these verses lead us to think that Paul would say” (p. 154). More assumptions follow, such as Piper’s “four steps” to misinterpret Hebrews 11:24-27 (pp. 160-162). Piper’s guessing game continues as he surmises that “it is fair to say” (p. 160), “[such and such] makes it likely” (p. 161), “the answer seems obvious” (p. 164), “It also seems obvious” (p. 164), “Does it not seem, then….” (p. 181). Piper continues to build his case on inferences and assumptions: “verse 12 suggests” (p. 182), “I am suggesting” (p. 184), “the pointers are there” (p. 186), “Jesus hinted….” (p. 187), “He could have said…” (p. 187), “There is a hint in Matthew 24:12” (p. 188): thus in Piper’s view the meaning of saving faith is apparently a complex puzzle that we must piece together with hints! Piper actually says: “Paul is the one who puts the pieces together in the fullest way” (p.188). Piper’s unorthodox method of Bible interpretation continues in that he strangely appeals to 1 John before the Gospel of John when defining saving faith (p. 189), and he reads his preconceived theological ideas into the biblical text when he writes: “I am saying that saving faith is a composite of different ways that the born-again soul receives Christ. And one of those ways of receiving him is to receive him as superior to everything that makes God’s commandments difficult. John calls this faith” (p. 193). No, John doesn’t call that faith; Piper calls that faith. Piper just inserted his Calvinistic presuppositions into the biblical text. That’s not called faith; it’s called eisegesis! Piper goes on to say concerning the Gospel of John: “Here we find the more [or most] straightforward statements about the affectional dimensions of believing than we find anywhere else in the Bible” (p. 197). But then Piper curiously says: “I do not know with certainty what John was trying to tell us [in his Gospel]” (pp. 197-198). No doubt this has to do with the fact that John’s Gospel doesn’t fit into Piper’s Calvinistic belief system. Piper goes on to once again read his preconceived theological viewpoint into the biblical text when he says: “the desiring heart turns from…one treasure to another. This is the movement implied in the heart’s coming” (p. 207). Piper says it’s “implied” because it’s not actually in the text. It’s not implied; it’s misapplied! An example of Piper’s poetic nonsense is seen when he says: “the soul’s movement is the awakening of desire for the received. That desire is the motion of the soul” (p. 210). Observing “Piper’s pink prose – [his] flowery, ambiguous, and suspiciously pious [language],” one reviewer of Piper’s writings highlighted the dangers involved by saying: “The most effective attack on truth, the most subversive attack on the doctrine of the completeness and efficacy of the work of Christ for the salvation of his people, is always couched in pious language and Biblical phraseology. The music is gay; it will lead you astray: Beware the Pied Piper.” (John W. Robbins, “Pied Piper”, The Trinity Foundation.) More guessing games from The Pied Piper of Calvinism: “I would venture a guess” (p. 210), “What you have just read is my guess” (p. 210), “there is good reason to think….” (p. 230), “There is no reason to think….” (p. 230), “I think Paul’s response to that would be….” (p. 238). Ironically, Piper admits that “for people of integrity, reality governs language choices” (pp. 224-225), but he subtly advocates that Christians need to use “New Language” in evangelism (p. 227). Piper twists the objective truth of redemption by Christ’s “precious blood” (1 Pet. 1:18-19) into a sort of postmodern subjective experience of loving it and treasuring it (p. 286). Whereas in reality, faith is simply accepting something as true (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4-5).

A major premise of Piper’s book is that he says that saving faith must include love (pp. 179-188). Piper bases this largely on 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12. For a detailed review of Piper’s view on this, see my article: “Must Saving Faith Include Love?” (FGFS, June 11, 2022). Piper says that people have to love the gospel to be saved (pp. 180-181). But Piper’s own illustration about the lecherous brain surgeon (p. 18) disproves his entire premise that trust implicitly includes love, because someone can trust a lecherous brain surgeon without loving him. And this is not just my conclusion, Piper admits this himself! Piper says: “experience teaches us that it is possible, even necessary at times, to trust a person with our lives whom we neither love, nor admire, nor even want to be around.” Piper’s admission highlights the fact that the word trust does not inherently include love. Piper also admits that certain “respected brothers” personally told him that they “were concerned that what I am saying may obscure or even contradict the precious doctrine of justification by faith alone” (p. 22, footnote 11). Gresham Machen and Wayne Grudem (both Reformed theologians!) also push back against Piper’s view of saving faith (pp. 71-73).

Some noticeably absent Bible verses nowhere to be found in Piper’s book include the following: Isa. 64:6; Jn. 3:17; Jn. 5:40; Jn. 6:40; Jn. 14:6; Jn. 14:15; Jn. 20:31; Acts 4:12; Rom. 1:16-17; Rom. 3:10; Rom. 3:23; Rom. 6:23; Rom. 10:17; Rom. 11:6; 1 Cor. 15:4; Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Tim. 2:15.

The Moody Handbook of Theology: Then and Now

There's an eye-opening article in the May/June 2018 edition of Grace In Focus that's titled "Moody: Then and Now" by Shawn Lazar.[1] The article compares and contrasts the doctrine of salvation as presented in the 1989 edition of The Moody Handbook of Theology with the newer 2014 edition of the book, and shows how the "Revised and Expanded" Moody Handbook of Theology appears to have subtly added works to saving faith![2] This is seen in several instances; for example, the 1989 edition says: "The issue of the terms of salvation is important because the purity of the gospel is at stake. What are the terms of salvation? Is salvation something in addition to faith? The issue is critical because Paul pronounced anathema on anyone who preached a gospel contrary to what he had preached (Gal. 1:8-9)."[3] But in the 2014 edition, the question about adding works to faith is changed so that it now reads as follows: "The issue of the terms of salvation is important because the purity of the gospel is at stake. What are the terms of salvation? Is intellectual assent to the gospel all that is required? The issue is critical because Paul pronounced anathema on anyone who preached a gospel contrary to what he had preached (Gal. 1:8-9)."[4] The question about "intellectual assent" shifts the focus away from the original question which was about adding works to faith, a topic that the editors of the newer edition apparently do not want to discuss. And why not? Could it be because they are guilty of adding works to faith as a requirement for salvation? Furthermore, the 1989 edition was quite clear in saying that intellectual assent to the gospel is not all that is required for salvation. Under the heading "Biblical View", the 1989 edition correctly stated: "Many passages of Scripture affirm that man's only responsibility in salvation is believing the gospel (John 1:12; 3:16, 18, 36; 5:24; 11:25-26; 12:44; 20:31; Acts 16:31; 1 John 5:13, and so forth). But what is faith? What does it mean to believe the gospel? Faith may be succinctly defined as 'confiding trust.' John's use of the word faith is similar to Paul's use in describing faith as believing 'into Christ.' For John, faith 'is an activity which takes men right out of themselves and makes them one with Christ.' Saving faith, however, is not mere intellectual assent to a doctrine; it involves more than that."[5] Thus the 1989 edition was clear on the definition of saving faith, and clear on the fact that faith apart from works is all that is required for salvation. Whereas the 2014 edition subtly implies that adding works to faith is also required for salvation.

Another significant difference to notice between the 1989 edition and the 2014 edition is that, in the 1989 edition, the number one false view of the conditions for salvation was "Repent and Believe." The 1989 edition correctly pointed out that biblically, repentance is part of believing in Christ, not a separate condition for salvation. But amazingly, in the "Revised and Expanded" 2014 edition of the book, the number one error in salvation is "Believe only"! Shawn Lazar correctly points out: "Did you notice the number one heresy in the new edition? Is it salvation by works? Nope. Is it legalism? Nope. Is it sacramentalism? Again, no. The number one heresy is to believe only. Faith alone is the number one error in salvation according to the 2014 edition of The Moody Handbook! Let that sink in."[6] 

LORDSHIP SALVATION CREEPS IN

There's something else very important to notice about the newer edition that reveals why the doctrine of salvation was changed. Take a close look at the front cover of the 2014 edition. Who wrote the foreword to the book? It says: "FOREWORD BY DR. JOHN MACARTHUR". By way of contrast, the foreword to the 1989 edition of the book was written by Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost, a friend of Free Grace Theology. Unlike J. Dwight Pentecost, John MacArthur is no friend of Free Grace Theology. Instead, he promotes what's called Lordship Salvation. MacArthur has a different understanding of justification by faith alone from what Free Grace Theology teaches. This is no doubt why the 2014 edition of The Moody Handbook of Theology has removed the question, "Is salvation something in addition to faith?" because this question draws attention to the fact that the Lordship view of repentance is something in addition to faith! Of course, MacArthur and his followers say they believe in justification by faith alone, but like so often happens, they redefine the terms. MacArthur and other Lordship Salvationists redefine words like faith and repentance so as to make them include all kinds of things! For example, to MacArthur and other proponents of Lordship Salvation, the word faith is redefined to mean surrender, commitment, obedience, and perseverance in good works. Similarly, they redefine the word repentance to mean not simply a change of mind or heart, but instead they say it means turning from every sin (or at least a willingness to do so), accompanied by a deep sorrow for sin, and a radical change of life (meaning change of lifestyle) for the better. MacArthur even says: "An immoral, ungodly person who supposedly accepts Jesus but never changes his lifestyle is not a Christian. To say that a person can come to Christ without making a break from the world is a lie. That kind of thinking will send more people down the broad road to destruction rather than the narrow way to salvation (Matt. 7:13-14). There must be a change of lifestyle!"[7] But is this really how a person is saved?

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?

The Bible says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). Biblical repentance (a change of mind) is part of believing, so when people believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, they have repented! Thus, "believe only" for salvation is true, and what's more, it is given as the sole condition for salvation over 115 times in the New Testament! For example, in the Gospel of John, written in order that "you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name" (Jn. 20:30-31), the verb "believe" is given as the one and only condition for salvation approximately 90 times: John 1:7, 1:12, 1:50, 2:11, 2:23, 3:15, 3:16, 3:18, 3:18, 3:36, 3:36, 4:21, 4:39, 4:41, 4:42, 4:48, 4:50, 4:53, 5:24, 5:38, 5:44, 5:46, 5:47, 5:47, 6:29, 6:30, 6:35, 6:36, 6:40, 6:47, 6:64, 6:69, 7:5, 7:31, 7:38, 7:39, 7:48, 8:24, 8:30, 8:31, 8:45, 8:46, 9:18, 9:35, 9:36, 9:38, 10:25, 10:26, 10:37, 10:38, 10:38, 10:38, 10:42, 11:15, 11:25, 11:26, 11:26, 11:27, 11:40, 11:42, 11:45, 11:48, 12:11, 12:36, 12:37, 12:38, 12:42, 12:44, 12:46, 12:47, 13:19, 14:1, 14:10, 14:11, 14:11, 14:12, 14:29, 16:9, 16:27, 16:30, 16:31, 17:8, 17:20, 17:21, 19:35, 20:8, 20:25, 20:29, 20:29, 20:31, 20:31. Now compare this with the word "repent" which is never even used once in John's Gospel! This is not to say that the lost don't need to repent, they do, it's just that repentance is part of believing in Christ! This biblical truth is affirmed in the 1989 edition of The Moody Handbook of Theology, which says: "Repent and believe. Repentance should not be understood as a separate condition of salvation for believing in Christ. If repentance is cited as a condition of salvation in terms of feeling sorry for one’s sins, then it is a wrong usage of the term. It should not be understood as a separate step in salvation. Acts 20:21 indicates that repentance and faith should not be seen as separate items in response to the gospel but together they signify belief in Christ. To believe in Christ is to change one’s mind about Christ and trust Him alone for salvation."[8] Even J. D. Greear (a Calvinist) has said: "Biblical belief, or 'faith,' includes a volitional aspect as well. When Jesus called the crowds in Mark 1 to 'repent and believe' (Mark 1:15), He was not adding a second component to belief, but clarifying what real belief entails."[9] Greear goes on to say "that repentance and faith are, in their essence, not two separate acts, but one, two sides of the same coin."[10]

If "believe only" for salvation is false, then we might as well throw away the entire Gospel of John and take the apostle Paul's response to the Philippian jailer out of the Bible. In response to the question, "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30), the apostle Paul in Acts 16:31 gives only one condition: "Believe"! In the words of the great evangelist D. L. Moody: "Do nothing, only believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."[11] 

References:

[1] Shawn Lazar, "Moody: Then and Now," Grace In Focus (May/June 2018): pp. 45-47.

[2] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (2014 edition), pp. 344-345.

[3] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (1989 edition), pp. 342, emphasis added.

[4] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (2014 edition), pp. 344-345, emphasis added.

[5] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (1989 edition), p. 343.

[6] Shawn Lazar, "Moody: Then and Now," Grace In Focus (May/June 2018): p. 46, emphasis his.

[7] John MacArthur, "Off with the Old, On with the New, Part 2" (Grace To You), https://www.gty.org/library/study-guides/193/the-portrait-of-a-new-life

[8] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (1989 edition), pp. 330-31.

[9] J. D. Greear, Stop Asking Jesus Into Your Heart (Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2013), p. 40.

[10] Ibid., p. 70. Furthermore, Greear affirms that repentance is essentially a change of mind: “Repentance is, in its essence, a Spirit-generated change of mind.” (J. D. Greear, Stop Asking Jesus Into Your Heart [Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2013], p. 68.)

[11] D. L. Moody, J. B. McClure, Editor, Anecdotes and Illustrations of D. L. Moody, p. 156.

Getting the Gospel Right, Pt. 4

In Distinction to Tom Stegall

and the Groundless Gospel 

* * *

The following objections were stated to me several years ago by a pastor who I’ll simply call Mr. Small-Faith, because he did not believe the truth of God’s Word on the Gospel (cf. Mark 16:14). I’ll cite his objections as accurately as I can remember, and then set forth my answers from the Bible. My answers here are the same answers that I gave to Mr. Small-faith except that I have elaborated on them more here in writing.

Answering Objections to the Gospel

Objection #1: While discussing the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15, Pastor Small-Faith said: “First Corinthians 15 is not a list of what a person has to believe for salvation.” 

Answer to Objection #1: But in 1 Corinthians 15, the apostle Paul is listing the facts of the gospel. The New Testament Greek scholar A. T. Robertson (1863-1934) affirms that “in 1 Cor. 15:4 Paul employs a present perfect indicative of the Resurrection of Jesus [i.e. ‘he has been raised’] in the midst of a long list of aorist indicatives [e.g. ‘died,’ ‘buried,’ ‘appeared’].”[1]

 

The Free Grace theologian William R. Newell lists the facts of the gospel when he affirms: “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.”[2] 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!”[3]
     

Commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 and the parallel passages found in Acts 13:28-31 and Mark 15:37-16:7, Christian apologist William Lane Craig similarly writes: “This remarkable correspondence of independent traditions is convincing proof that the four-line formula (which, as is evident from the grammatically unnecessary repetition of ‘and that’ [kai hoti] at the head of each line, list sequentially four distinct events) is a summary in outline form of the basic events of Jesus’ passion and resurrection, including his burial in the tomb. We thus have evidence from two of the earliest, independent sources in the New Testament for the burial of Jesus in the tomb.”[4]
     

I can anticipate a groundless gospel person responding to the above quote by William Lane Craig and saying something like, “Well, he may say it’s a list but he doesn’t say it’s the gospel.” Ah, but here’s another quote where he does, in fact, say it’s the gospel! Notice what Dr. Craig says in his lecture titled “The Work of Christ – His Resurrection,” he points us to 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 and affirms “that Paul lists…the four essentials of the Gospel”: “For our Scriptural data on this subject, I want to turn to just two central passages in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is the first Scripture that we want to turn to….What does Paul say? He says in verse 3, ‘For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,’ and now comes this four line formula: ‘that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas,’ or Peter, that is the Aramaic word for ‘Peter,’ the name for him, ‘then to the Twelve.’ So notice here [in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5] that Paul lists as part of the four essentials of the Gospel the death of Christ for our sins, his burial, his resurrection on the third day, and then his postmortem appearances to various individuals and groups.”[5]

     

Let’s take a closer look at how Paul lists the facts of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15. Notice there is a series of three “and that” (kai hoti) clauses linking the facts of Christ’s death (15:3), burial (15:4a), resurrection (15:4b), and appearances (15:5). It may be clearer to see the wording in the text: “that Christ died for our sins…and that He was buried…and that He was raised…and that He was seen” (1 Cor. 15:3-5). If “First Corinthians 15 is not a list”, then how does Pastor Small-Faith explain the series of “and that” (kai hoti) clauses repeated three times in 1 Corinthians 15:4ff? The answer is he didn’t explain it. In fact, as I will go on to point out, he admitted that he hadn’t even looked at the Greek! This is truly a tragedy, especially on the part of a pastor. New Testament Greek scholar A. T. Robertson points out that “the chief reason why preachers do not get and do not keep up a fair and needful knowledge of the Greek New Testament is nothing less than carelessness, and even laziness in many cases. They can get along somehow without it, and so let it pass or let it drop.”[6] In regards to the series of three “and that” (kai hoti) clauses in 1 Corinthians 15:4ff, this is what A. T. Robertson says in his classic book A Greek Grammar of the New Testament in Light of Historical Research (pp. 1181-1182): “The Mere Connective (‘And’)….The simple copulative idea [i.e. joining together coordinate words or word groups and expressing addition of their meanings] is…the most common use of kai where words are piled together by means of this conjunction…The chain with kai as the connective may go on indefinitely…So we have kai hoti [“and that”] three times in 1 Cor. 15:4 (kai to connect hoti clauses).” Dr. S. Lewis Johnson (1915-2004), who was for many years Professor of Hebrew, Greek, and Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, summarizes the significance of the four hoti content clauses in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 when he states the following in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary: “The substance of Paul’s message is contained in the four that’s following received [in 1 Cor. 15:3ff], and it includes Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearances. These things make up the Gospel.”[7]
     

Does a person have to believe “the gospel” (1 Cor. 15:1) to be saved? Is it saving truth? Contrary to what Pastor Small-Faith has said, 1 Corinthians 15 (verses 3-5, i.e. the gospel) is indeed something a person has to believe for salvation! This is made clear in the first couple of verses in the chapter when Paul says “by this gospel you are saved” (1 Cor. 15:2). In The Theological Wordbook, co-authored by “four Dallas Theological Seminary stalwarts and theological statesmen—Donald K. Campbell, Wendell G. Johnston, John F. Walvoord, and John A. Witmer”[8] and subtitled “What the Bible Teaches on 200 Theological Terms and Their Relevance for Today,” Donald Campbell (the third president of Dallas Theological Seminary)[9] writes the following in his discussion of the term “Gospel”: “The gospel message is simply that ‘Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve’ (1 Cor. 15:3-5). Paul said this was the gospel he preached to the Corinthians and it was the message by which they received salvation.”[10]
     

Pastor Jim Scudder Jr. of Quentin Road Baptist Church, although he unfortunately compromises with the groundless gospel, yet he is correct to say: “How can you be saved? What is the mode? What is the method? They received by believing. How can you be saved? How can your friends be saved? How can those at your work place be saved? How can your children be saved? How can your family be saved? How can your neighbors be saved? They also can be given the gospel and they also would respond in faith by believing in Him. It’s so simple. And it says [in 1 Corinthians 15:1] they received it, meaning they believed and trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ, and they were saved by it – look back at verse 2 [of 1 Corinthians 15]: “by which also ye are saved”. Saved from what? Saved from a lot of things, but really the main one is hell! Right? Some people are like, ‘You know, a lot of preachers just preach a message of the gospel and people just want to get fire insurance.’ Well, yeah, don’t you want to not go to hell? That’s a really good motivation. There’s a lot of other things that happen at salvation. It’s not just about escaping hell – but that’s a pretty big thing! We’re saved from hell!”[11]
     

The words of Free Grace theologian William R. Newell (1868-1956) are appropriate when he writes: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel…For it is the power of God unto salvation [Rom. 1:16] – The second ‘For’ gives the reason for Paul’s boldness: this good news concerning Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearing [see 1 Cor. 15:3-5], ‘is the power of God unto salvation unto every one that believeth.’ There is no fact for a preacher or teacher to hold more consistently in his mind than this.”[12] “Again we repeat that it is of the very first and final importance that the preacher or teacher of the gospel believe in the bottom of his soul that the simple story, Christ died for our sins, was buried, hath been raised from the dead the third day, and was seen, IS THE POWER OF GOD to salvation to every one who rests in it – who believes!”[13]
      

Objection #2: Pastor Small-Faith said that 1 Corinthians 15:3ff is Christian-life truth only, and not a checklist of what to believe for salvation.
 

Answer to Objection #2: Actually, it’s both (as Pastor Jim Scudder Jr. alluded to above when he said, “Saved from a lot of things, but really the main one is hell!”). Although I don’t agree with Pastor Dennis Rokser’s groundless interpretation of the gospel, he is correct to explain: “The Gospel offers the good news of SALVATION to us. (1 Cor. 15:2a)…by which also you are saved…The present tense of ‘saved’ may be viewed in two possible ways. First, Paul may be communicating that these Corinthians via the Gospel were being presently saved from the POWER OF SIN in their Christian lives as long as they remained steadfast to the Gospel, just like they had been saved from the PENALTY OF SIN (Hell) when they had trusted in Christ. In other words, the Gospel they had received would continue to have saving effects from spiritual damage upon their lives ‘if you hold fast the word which I preached to you.’ In the second view, the apostle may be indicating that the Gospel continues to bear fruit in Corinth by various [unsaved] sinners continuing to receive it, and as a result being ‘saved’. Both views are presented by Dr. S. Lewis Johnson in his comments on 1 Corinthians in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1255.”[14] The comment of Dr. S. Lewis Johnson on 1 Corinthians 15:2 is as follows: “Ye are saved (Gr., present tense) may refer to continual salvation from the power of sin in the lives of believers, or it may refer to the day-by-day salvation of the inhabitants of Corinth as they received the message and formed part of the church of Jesus Christ.”[15]
     

While I agree that both interpretations of “saved” in 1 Corinthians 15:2 are acceptable, for the moment I’m focusing on the second of the two interpretations: the gospel will save people from hell! This understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:2 is also supported by Zane Hodges, who taught New Testament Greek for 27 years at Dallas Theological Seminary. Notice what he says: “The problem in correctly understanding this verse [1 Cor. 15:2] is caused by the English translation. A very flexible Greek verb (katecho) is translated ‘hold fast’ in the New King James Version (the AV has ‘keep in memory’). But the verb could equally well be rendered ‘take hold of’ or ‘take possession of’ [e.g. Matt. 21:38; Lk. 14:9]. In that case it would refer to the act of appropriating the truth of the Gospel by faith. Closer examination of the Greek text suggests that this is indeed the correct understanding. The Greek word order can be represented as follows: ‘by which also you are saved, by the word I preached to you, if you take hold of it, unless you believed in vain.’ From this it appears that Paul is thinking of the saving effect of the preached word when it is duly appropriated, unless in fact that appropriation (by faith) has been in vain. What he means by believing ‘in vain’ is made clear in verses 14 and 17: ‘And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty [the AV has ‘vain’ for ‘empty’]. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins [the AV has ‘vain’ for ‘futile’].’ First Corinthians 15:2 must be read in the light of the subsequent discussion about resurrection. Paul is simply saying, in verse 2, that the Gospel he has preached to them is a saving Gospel when it is appropriated by faith, unless, after all, the resurrection is false. In that case, no salvation has occurred at all and the faith his readers had exercised was futile. But naturally Paul absolutely insists on the reality of the resurrection of Christ. He therefore does not think that the Corinthians have believed ‘in vain.’”[16]

Objection #3: Pastor Small-Faith said that a person does not have to believe in Christ’s burial or resurrection appearances to be saved.
 

Answer to Objection #3: But what does the Bible say? Does the Bible say a person doesn’t have to believe in Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances to be saved? On the contrary, Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances are included in Paul’s preaching “this message of salvation” in Acts 13:26-41 (see verses 29-31 in particular) which he calls “the good news” in verse 32. Interestingly enough, even doubting Tom Stegall (the main false teacher of the groundless gospel) acknowledges that Acts 13:23-41 is the saving gospel! Stegall says: “It is imperative to understand, for the purpose of determining the content of the gospel, that from Acts 13:23 onward Paul is preaching ‘the gospel’ of Christ.”[17] Stegall goes on to say that “we may safely conclude that Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus Christ as Savior starting at Acts 13:23.”[18] And again Stegall emphasizes that “the actual content of the gospel itself [is] (13:23-41).”[19] Several pages later in his article Stegall references the same passage, referring to it as “that first Galatian gospel presentation in Acts 13:23-41.”[20] Dr. Gary Habermas has pointed out that when both sides agree on something in a debate, the point on which there is agreement is considered to be true. And so Acts 13:23-41 argues against Pastor Small-Faith’s bold claim that a person does not have to believe in Christ’s burial or resurrection appearances to be saved.
     

Additionally, in the book of Romans, Paul writes: “But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our message?” (Rom. 10:16). In Romans 10:16, Paul calls Isaiah’s message “the gospel”. Paul is quoting Isaiah 53:1. Isaiah chapter 53 includes prophecies of Christ’s death (Isa. 53:5), burial (Isa. 53:9), resurrection, and that “He shall see His followers, He shall prolong His days” (Isa. 53:10, The Berkeley Version). Dr. C. I. Scofield in his book What Do the Prophets Say? (pages 57-58) affirms that Isaiah chapter 53 is one of “the evangelistic messages of Isaiah (Isa. 53)”. Commenting on the gospel in Isaiah 53, Herbert Lockyer (the author of All the Doctrines of the Bible and similar books) relates the following true story from the life of D. L. Moody: “When Moody was asked to conduct his first mission in London in 1874, union meetings were comparatively new. The committee asked him to explain his methods. Everything went smoothly until one member asked him his creed. Moody calmly replied, ‘My creed is already in print.’ A member seized a paper and pencil and asked where it could be found. ‘In the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah,’ Moody answered.”[21] 
     

Furthermore, Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances are also included in Paul’s famous declaration of the saving gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5. This too is contrary to Pastor Small-Faith’s assertion that a person does not have to believe in Christ’s burial or resurrection appearances to be saved.
     

And so just looking at these three New Testament books of Acts, Romans, and 1 Corinthians (and the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament), these passages of Scripture do not support the claim that a person does not have to believe in Christ’s burial or resurrection appearances to be saved. Instead these Scriptures argue strongly against that claim![22]

Objection #4: Pastor Small-Faith said he agrees with Duluth Bible Church and Pastor Dennis Rokser because they are his friends and they are doing a lot of good things.
 

Answer to Objection #4: But in Galatians 1:10 the apostle Paul says that we should be God-pleasers, not people-pleasers. Pastor Small-Faith is compromising the truth of the gospel because he is personal friends with Dennis Rokser. Free Grace author William R. Newell writes: “Was Paul a milk-and-water [weak, insipid] man? Are you? Why was Paul willing to be vehement concerning the truth? Gal. 1:10. Always distrust a preacher who is salving things over for you or is afraid to displease you. Such men are not servants of whom? Gal. 1:10.”[23]
 

Objection #5: Pastor Small-Faith doesn’t think we should name names when pointing out false teaching.
 

Answer to Objection #5: But the Apostle Paul named the names of false teachers like Hymenaeus and Alexander (see 1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17), and Paul said to follow his example as he follows Christ (see 1 Cor. 11:1; 1 Cor. 4:16; Phil. 3:17). Christian apologist Dr. Walter Martin (1928-1989), author of the classic book The Kingdom of the Cults, correctly states: “We don’t wish to do this [name names] because we don’t want to offend people. You can’t use names [people say]. Since when? ‘Hymenaeus and Philetus have erred concerning the truth. They teach the resurrection is past. They overturn the faith of the church.’ [2 Tim. 2:17-18.] Didn’t Paul say that? ‘Alexander the coppersmith hath done me much harm. May the Lord reward him according to his works.’ [2 Tim. 4:14.]”[24]
     

Furthermore, at the 2007 Grace Conference, I personally heard Pastor James Scudder Sr. name John MacArthur as a false teacher. So does Pastor Small-Faith have a problem with one of his own pastors calling John MacArthur a false teacher? I doubt it! So here we have an inconsistency and double standard, namely: Pastor Small-Faith doesn’t have a problem with Pastor Scudder calling John MacArthur a false teacher, but he has a problem with me saying Dennis Rokser is a false teacher because Small-Faith is personal friends with Rokser! Not only is this a failure to warn the flock of wolves like Paul tells us in Acts 20:28-31, but it is compromising the truth of the gospel for the sake of pleasing people, like Paul writes about in Galatians 1:6-10.

Objection #6: This is not so much an objection as an admission. Pastor Small-Faith admitted that he hadn’t even looked at 1 Corinthians 15 in the original Greek. He admitted that he was not familiar with the Greek in 1 Corinthians 15, but said he was open to looking at it. I suggested Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament, by A. T. Robertson. Pastor Small-Faith said he had this book in his library.
 

Answer to Objection #6: The New Testament Greek scholar A. T. Robertson makes it very clear in his book Word Pictures of the New Testament that according to the original Greek language of the New Testament, all four verbs in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 are part of the gospel which Paul received from the Lord and delivered to the Corinthians. Concerning this, A. T. Robertson writes: 

 

    “[1 Cor. 15, verse] 3. First of all (en prōtois). Among first things. In primis. Not to time, but to importance. Which I also received (ho kai parelabon). Direct revelation claimed as about the institution of the Lord’s Supper (11:23) and same verbs used (paredōka, parelabon). Four items given by Paul in explaining ‘the gospel’ which Paul preached….The four items are presented by four verbs (died, apethanen, was buried, etaphē, hath been raised, egēgertai, appeared, ōphthē). Christ died (Christos apethanen). Historical fact and crucial event. For our sins (huper tōn hamartiōn hēmōn). Huper means literally over, in behalf, even instead of (Gal. 3:13), where used of persons. But here much in the sense of peri (Gal. 1:14) as is common in Koine [Greek]. In 1 Peter 3:18 we have peri hamartiōn, huper adikōn. According to the Scriptures (kata tas graphas). As Jesus showed (Luke 22:37; 24:25) and as Peter pointed out (Acts 2:25-27; 3:35) and as Paul had done (Acts 13:24f.; 17:3). Cf. Ro 1:2ff. 

     [1 Cor. 15, verse] 4. And that he was buried (kai hoti etaphē). Note hoti repeated before each of the four verbs as a separate item. Second aorist passive indicative of thaptō, old verb, to bury. This item is an important detail as the Gospels show. And that he hath been raised (kai hoti egēgertai). Perfect passive indicative, not ēgerthē like rose of the King James’ Version. There is reason for this sudden change of tense. Paul wishes to emphasize the permanence of the resurrection of Jesus. He is still risen. On the third day (tēi hēmerāi tēi tritēi). Locative case of time. Whether Paul had seen either of the Gospels we do not know, but this item is closely identified with the fact of Christ’s resurrection. We have it in Peter’s speech (Acts 10:40) and Jesus points it out as part of prophecy (Luke 24:46). The other expression occasionally found ‘after three days’ (Mark 10:34) is merely free vernacular for the same idea and not even Matt. 12:40 disturbs it. See on Luke 24:1 for record of the empty tomb on the first day of the week (the third day). 

     [1 Cor. 15, verse] 5. And that he appeared to Cephas (kai hoti ōphthē Kēphāi). First aorist passive indicative of the defective verb horaō, to see. Paul means not a mere ‘vision,’ but actual appearance. John uses ephanerōthē (John 21:14) from phaneroō, to make manifest, of Christ’s appearance to the seven by the Sea of Galilee. Peter was listed first (prōtos) among the Apostles (Matt. 10:2). Jesus had sent a special message to him (Mark 16:7) after his resurrection. This special appearance to Peter is made the determining factor in the joyful faith of the disciples (Luke 24:34), though mentioned incidentally here. Paul had told all these four facts to the Corinthians in his preaching.”[25] 

 

Even in the book of Romans, A. T. Robertson looks back to Paul’s definition of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15! Commenting on Romans 2:16, Robertson writes: “[Rom.] 2:16 According to my gospel (kata to euaggelion mou). What Paul preaches (1 Corinthians 15:1) and which is the true gospel”.[26]

Objection #7: Pastor Small-Faith said that I should find another church, and this was before he had even looked at 1 Corinthians 15 in the original Greek to see if I was right! (Pastor Small-Faith had previously told the same thing to a friend of mine on a separate occasion when this friend had tried to talk with Small-Faith about 1 Corinthians 15 and the truth of Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances in the gospel.)
 

Answer to Objection #7: Isn’t it premature to ask people to leave the church because of a doctrinal issue if, by your own admission, you haven’t even studied it out for yourself? The Bible says: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15, NASB). Also consider what the Bible says in Proverbs 18:13 (KJV): “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” Other translations put it this way:

• “He who answers a matter before he hears the facts, it is folly and shame to him.” – Amp.

• “To answer a question before you have heard it out is both stupid and insulting.” – NEB.

• “He who answereth a matter before he heareth it, exposeth his folly and incurreth contempt” (Septuagint).

 

Objection #8: Pastor Small-Faith doesn’t think the burial is part of the gospel because Jesus doesn’t mention it to Nicodemus.
 

Answer to Objection #8: Jesus doesn’t specifically mention His bodily resurrection to Nicodemus either. Is the bodily resurrection of Christ not part of the gospel because Jesus doesn’t explicitly mention it to Nicodemus? No, of course not. But it’s implied in the context, just like Christ’s burial. Where is Christ’s burial in John chapter 3? It’s implied, not denied. According to the Old Testament Jewish Law, what was to be done with the corpse of anyone who was “lifted up” (Jn. 3:15) on a tree? It was commanded that the body surely be buried! This Jewish Law is found in Deuteronomy 21:22-23 and it reads as follows: “If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.” In Galatians 3:13, the apostle Paul quotes from this passage of Scripture from Deuteronomy and applies it to Christ. And so we see that in light of the Old Testament, the burial of Christ is implied in the context of John chapter 3.
     

Pastor Small-Faith’s objection shows that he fails to understand progressive revelation. Jesus spoke to Nicodemus during the dispensation of the Mosaic Law (see Gal. 4:4) and before the events of the Passion Week occurred. We cannot expect Nicodemus to be held accountable to believe truth that was not revealed like it has now been revealed after the events of the Gospel have taken place. So just because Jesus didn’t explicitly mention His burial to Nicodemus doesn’t mean it’s not part of the gospel.
     

Dr. Charles Ryrie and other dispensationalists affirm that people have always been saved by faith, but the content of faith changes in different dispensations and according to God’s progressive revelation. Charles Ryrie writes: “The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations. It is this last point, of course, that distinguishes dispensationalism from covenant theology, but it is not a point to which the charge of teaching two ways of salvation can be attached. It simply recognizes the obvious fact of progressive revelation.”[27] Similarly, Arnold Fructenbaum states: “Let it be stated categorically that Dispensationalism has not and does not believe that the Law of Moses was a means of salvation. This concept is rejected because it would make salvation by means of works. Salvation was and always is by grace through faith. While the content of faith has changed from age to age, depending on progressive revelation, the means of salvation never changes. The law was not given to serve as a means of salvation (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16; 3:11, 21).”[28]
     

Here are several more points I would like to make in regards to the objection that says Christ’s burial isn’t part of the gospel because Jesus didn’t mention it to Nicodemus in John chapter 3:

• The apostle John wrote John chapter 3 (e.g. John 3:16) from a resurrection perspective after the events of the Gospel took place. But Nicodemus did not have a resurrection perspective in John chapter 3 because the resurrection of Jesus had not yet occurred.

• John 20:30-31 is the main purpose statement of John’s Gospel. Thus, John 3:16 must be understood in light of John 20:30-31. In other words, John 3:16 must be understood in light of the historical facts of the Gospel such as the death, burial, resurrection, and manifestation of Christ which the apostle John highlights in his Gospel narrative (see John chapters 19-21).

• The only sign given to Nicodemus and his generation was the sign of Jonah the prophet (see Matthew 12:38-41). And the sign of Jonah the prophet points to, among other things, the burial of Christ. Even Tom Stegall acknowledges that the sign of Jonah the prophet prefigures or points to the burial of Christ. For example, Stegall says that “God prophetically and typologically ordained that Christ should be in the tomb for ‘three days and three nights’ (Jonah 1:17; Matt. 12:40; 26:61; 27:40, 63)”.[29] Nicodemus may not have understood this before the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, but that only proves my point about progressive revelation.

• Jesus talks about being “born-again” in John chapter 3. Similarly, the apostle Paul says that the Corinthians were “begotten [born-again] through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). Is Paul contradicting Jesus? Do we now have to down-size the gospel to the “crossless” gospel interpretation of it and forget about progressive revelation? Do we have to remove the burial and resurrection of Jesus from the gospel because they are not fully explained in John chapter 3 and Nicodemus may not have known about them? (Even though he should have from the Scriptures!) No, of course not. That’s backwards. Again, this is where progressive revelation and dispensationalism come into play and are very important to understand. In other words, as Charles Ryrie and other Bible teachers have pointed out, people have always been saved by faith in God’s revealed truth, but the content of faith changes in different dispensations and according to God’s progressive revelation. The often quoted statement by Augustine is worth repeating: “Distinguish the ages, and the Scriptures harmonize.”[30]

• We need to be careful not to isolate John chapter 3 apart from the rest of the Gospel of John and apart from the rest of the New Testament. By selecting the words of Jesus in John chapter 3 to the exclusion of further divine revelation (such as where the Lord Jesus does specifically mention His burial to the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 for example; cf. Gal. 1:11-12), Pastor Small-Faith is not taking into account “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), and not “accurately handling the Word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

• The context of John chapter 3 is pre-cross. So we cannot expect the same amount of revelation in John chapter 3 as we have now after the cross. It has been said: “The Old Testament [in which Jesus lived, Gal. 4:4] is the New Testament concealed. The New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.” This is progressive revelation in a nutshell, in an axiom.

• John chapter 3 is not the only place in the Bible that talks about the new birth and being born-again. We could even say that John chapter 3 is not the only place in the Bible where Jesus talks about being born again because the Bible talks about it in other passages and Jesus is the divine author of all Scripture. And in reference to the gospel, the apostle Paul said that he received his gospel directly from Jesus Christ (see Galatians 1:11-12). New Testament scholar A. T. Robertson affirms: “It was the boast of Paul that he had a direct revelation of the gospel of Jesus (Gal. 1.11 f.).”[31] And of course, the Bible says that people are born-again through the gospel (1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Pet. 1:23-25, NKJV).

• The clearest declaration of the gospel is found in 1 Corinthians 15, not John chapter 3. Pastor Jim Scudder Jr. of Quentin Road Baptist Church affirms: “The best place in Scripture to find the gospel in a concise fashion is First Corinthians 15:1-4 [more accurately 1 Cor. 15:1-5]…Notice in verse one that this ‘gospel’ that he preached, they had received. In verse three, it is the same gospel he had received. Then he finished verse three with defining what he and they had received, Christ died for our sins…he was buried, and that he rose again the third day…”[32] Similarly, Pastor Dennis Rokser writes: “In fact, the most definitive passage in the New Testament explaining to us the very content of the Gospel is found in this same book, 1 Corinthians chapter 15.”[33] One last example will suffice to illustrate my point that the clearest declaration of the gospel is found in 1 Corinthians 15, not John chapter 3. In his book Sanctuary: Finding Moments of Refuge in the Presence of God, David Jeremiah shares the following true story in a daily devotional titled “DEFINING THE GOSPEL”: “Duncan McNeil, the Scottish evangelist, once said that in school he had a seminary professor who insisted on opening his theology classes with a question. No one could ever anticipate what the question would be. One day he said to his students, ‘Gentlemen, can someone give me a definition of the gospel?’ A student rose and read John 3:16: ‘For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.’ The professor said, ‘That is a good gospel text, but it is not a definition of the gospel.’ Another student read 1 Timothy 1:15: ‘How true it is, and how I long that everyone should know it, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners – and I was the greatest of them all.’ Again the professor declined to accept it; he waited for what he wanted. Finally, a student stood and read 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, much to the professor’s delight. It was evident that he had the reply he desired; he said, ‘Gentlemen, that is the gospel. Believe it, live it, preach it, and die for it if necessary.’”[34] And so there is a general consensus of agreement among both traditional and non-traditional Free Grace advocates (and even in the evangelical community at large) on this key point of doctrine.[35]

• In response to Small-Faith’s objection that Christ’s burial isn’t part of the gospel because Jesus didn’t specifically mention it to Nicodemus, we could very well ask: “Don’t you believe in progressive revelation?[36] Furthermore, don’t you believe in ‘the whole counsel of God’? John chapter 3 is not the only place in the Bible that talks about being born-again.” In 1 Corinthians 4:15, for example, the apostle Paul says that the Corinthians were “begotten [i.e. born-again] through the gospel.” And Paul specifically mentions Christ’s burial in his gospel (see 1 Cor. 15:4). Again, you can’t isolate John chapter 3 apart from the rest of John’s Gospel or apart from the rest of the Bible.

• Someone might object and say: “The Gospel of John was written after 1 Corinthians 15 so in light of progressive revelation the Gospel of John is the final word.” In response to such an objection I would point out that the apostle John highlights the burial of Christ in his Gospel narrative (see John 19:38-42). Furthermore, the apostle John preached the same gospel message as the apostle Paul (see 1 Cor. 15:1-11; Gal. 2:6-9). Dr. Gary Habermas affirms: “The bottom line was that Paul’s Gospel teaching, which included the resurrection (see 1 Cor. 15:1-5), was approved by the other three apostles [Peter, James, and John]. They added nothing to his message (see [Gal.] 2:6, 9).”[37] What’s more, as I pointed out earlier, even groundless gospel advocates agree that the clearest declaration of the gospel is found in 1 Corinthians 15.

 

Objection #9: Pastor Small-Faith doesn’t think that Christ’s resurrection appearances are mentioned as part of the content of saving faith anywhere in Scripture.
 

Answer to Objection #9: Notice that Small-Faith uses the phrase “content of saving faith”. I’ve noticed that groundless gospel advocates seem to shy away from using the word “gospel” (probably because in 1 Corinthians 15 “the gospel” is clearly defined and it includes Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances). Instead they like to use the more ambiguous phrase “content of saving faith” – that way they can define it however they want.
     

But it’s important to understand that the gospel message is the content of saving faith. The gospel is the saving message. The gospel is the message a person has to believe in order to be saved. In other words, there is no dichotomy between the gospel of salvation and the content of saving faith. Even Tom Stegall affirms that “Free Grace Christians must be clear and unequivocal in using biblical language, as we confidently proclaim ‘the gospel of the Christ’ as God’s saving message to the lost.”[38]
  

In 1 Corinthians 15, Christ’s resurrection appearances are included in the gospel; they are included in the kai hoti (“and that”) content clause: “and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve” (1 Cor. 15:5).[39] In a glaring admission, even Tom Stegall admits that in this passage of Scripture, Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances are part of the gospel! Notice what Stegall says in the chapter of his book titled “What Is the Gospel According to 1 Corinthians 15:3-11?” Stegall writes: “Christ’s burial and post-resurrection appearances…are never presented anywhere else in Scripture as being either part of ‘the gospel’ or as being essential saving truth.”[40] This statement is subtle but significant. Notice that Stegall doesn’t say: “Christ’s burial and post-resurrection appearances are never presented anywhere in Scripture as being part of ‘the gospel’….” Instead he says: “Christ’s burial and post-resurrection appearances…are never presented anywhere else in Scripture as being part of ‘the gospel’….” That’s a huge difference! By saying “anywhere else”, Stegall just admitted that there is at least one place in Scripture which includes Christ’s burial and appearances in the gospel! In other words, Stegall is admitting that at least in this passage in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff, Christ’s burial and appearances are presented as being part of the gospel or as being essential saving truth!

     

Similarly, Stegall contends that there are “No Parallel Burial/Appearances Passages” to the passage in 1 Corinthians 15. In other words, he doesn’t believe that Christ’s burial or resurrection appearances are listed as part of the gospel or the contents of saving faith anywhere else in Scripture besides 1 Corinthians 15. But this is a telling admission because even he can’t dismiss 1 Corinthians 15 as a “Burial/Appearances Passage” because clearly Christ’s burial and appearances are listed as part of the gospel in this passage of Scripture. The best Stegall can do is say there are “No Parallel…Passages” besides the passage in 1 Corinthians 15. But even if this were true (that there are no other passages of Scripture which include Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances in the gospel, and 1 Corinthians 15 is the only passage that does), it raises the obvious question: What’s wrong with the passage in 1 Corinthians 15? Especially since Stegall’s own pastor has said: “In fact, the most definitive passage in the New Testament explaining to us the very content of the Gospel is found in this same book, 1 Corinthians chapter 15.”[41] Of course, what’s wrong with 1 Corinthians 15 from the groundless gospel point of view is that it clearly includes Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances in the gospel![42]
     

However, Stegall’s contention that there are “No Parallel Burial/Appearances Passages” (to the one in 1 Corinthians 15) is false in light of several passages in both the Old and New Testaments which include Christ’s burial and appearances in the gospel. Some of these passages include, for example: Psalm 22 (A Messianic Psalm), Psalm 40 (another Messianic Psalm), Isaiah 53: which Dr. C. I. Scofield calls one of “the evangelistic messages of Isaiah (Isa. 53)”[43], and there is also the narrative of Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and manifestation in the Gospel of John, also Acts 13:26-41, and furthermore there are also other sermons in Acts such as Peter’s sermon in Acts chapter 10:38-43. (Christ’s burial is implied in Acts 10:39-40; cf. Deut. 21:22-23.) And so in contrast to what Stegall and others have said, there are actually a number of parallel burial/appearances passages in the Scriptures in addition to the passage in 1 Corinthians 15! Stegall’s willful blindness towards the truth of God’s Word on the Gospel reminds me of the words of Isaiah the prophet when he says: “Hear, you deaf! And look, you blind, that you may see. Who is blind but My servant, or so deaf as My messenger whom I send? Who is so blind as he that is at peace with Me, or so blind as the servant of the LORD? You have seen many things, but you do not observe them; your ears are open, but none hears.” (Isaiah, 42:18-20, NASB.)
     

In response to Pastor Small-Faith’s specific objection that Christ’s resurrection appearances are not mentioned as part of the content of saving faith anywhere in Scripture, I personally like what the Bible says in Psalms 40:1-3. This is a prophecy of the resurrection of Christ, and the text says: “I waited patiently for the LORD; and He inclined unto Me, and heard My cry. He brought Me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set My feet upon a rock, and established My goings, and He hath put a new song in My mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.” Here it is prophesied that many will see the praise on the lips of the Risen Christ and shall trust in the LORD![44] Also see Psalm 22:22; cf. John 20:17; Hebrews 2:9-13.
 

Objection #10: Amazingly, Pastor Small-Faith said he had a problem with me referring to false teaching and paganism as darkness or “the dark side”. He didn’t like me saying that and he said it was not profitable.

Answer to Objection #10: But the Bible clearly says otherwise! Ephesians 5:11 says: “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Psalm 119:130 says that the entrance of God’s Word brings light. Another Bible verse in the Old Testament says: “To the Law and to the Testimony! If it does not agree with this it is because it has no light in it!” (Isaiah 8:20). So it’s clear that the concept of darkness and light is straight from the Bible, and Christians are called to expose the darkness with the light of God’s Word.
     

Pastor Small-Faith said we should “just stay positive” when presenting the gospel. I guess he doesn’t tell anyone they are a sinner because that’s not positive. And what about when the Bible says that salvation is “not by works” (Titus 3:5) and “not of yourselves” (Eph. 2:8)? That’s not positive either. It’s negative. But it’s the truth of God’s Word. And we are instructed to “Preach the Word” (2 Tim. 4:2a) and declare “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) and “reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with great patience and instruction” like the Bible says in 2 Timothy 4:2. The apostle Paul said that if he were still trying to please men, he would not be a bond-servant of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:10-11). The apostle Paul had stern words for those who would distort the gospel of Christ (see Galatians 1:8-9).
     

Pastor Small-Faith’s statement that we should “just stay positive” when presenting the gospel reminds me of Joel Olsteen and his methods. These preachers don’t want to offend people with the truth. But these were not the methods of our Lord Jesus who said things like: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” (See Matthew 23:1-26.) Nor were they the methods of the great apostle Paul. Shortly before his martyrdom, the apostle Paul said in 2 Timothy 4:3-4: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” The words of Dr. Walter Martin are appropriate when he says: “You see, we have been bemuted [Editor’s Note: bemute is an old English word meaning “to drop dung on from above, as does a bird”] for many years that all we have to do to discharge our obligation as Christians is to go out into the world and tell people that Jesus loves them. Once we have done that [some say], we have accomplished our task. This is not New Testament theology. I don’t know where it developed from originally, but it did not originate with the Holy Spirit. For if you read all through the New Testament, you will find an amazing fact. You will find that almost half of it is an apologetic document. That is, the men who were speaking were speaking in defense of the faith. And they were giving reasons for their belief in Jesus Christ. When our Lord was questioned by the Pharisees, the Sadducees, by the Herodians, by the people who were constantly trying to entrap Him – Jesus did not turn around and say, ‘God loves you. The Lord bless you. Depart in peace. Everything’s going to be alright. Remember, love one another.’ And then preach them the Sermon on the Mount. You will not find that theology in the New Testament. Jesus spent the time to answer their questions. And He spent the time to reprove and rebuke what they said, because they were distorting the truth of God. Some of the most scathing words ever found on this planet were uttered by the Man who said, ‘Permit the little children to come to Me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven.’ And the world is always ready to have the Jesus with the Roman nose, the light beard, the long hair, the Nordic features, and the milk-sop theology. It will always welcome this Jesus, but it will never stand for the Jesus who said, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting flames, prepared for the devil and his angels since the foundation of the age.’ The world will listen to the love of God but the world wants nothing to do with the justice of God. And it is strange that when the Christian stands up for his faith, he is accused of attacking the world. The truth of the matter is, when the Christian stands up for his faith, he is emulating his Master, for that is precisely what Christ and the apostles did. There is a verse in Scripture which, I believe, has great significance. It’s found in the book of Jude. It’s a simple verse. And I’m sure that you have memorized it at one time or another, or should have. It’s verse 3. Jude said, ‘When I wrote to you concerning our common salvation, it was necessary for me to urge you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.’ That’s the King James. But the Greek is a little better. The Greek says, ‘When I wrote to you about our common salvation, it was necessary for me to urge you to put up a stiff fight for the faith, once for all time delivered to the saints.’”[45]

 

Objection #11: Pastor Small-Faith said that Jesus never mentioned His resurrection appearances; therefore they are not part of the gospel.

Answer to Objection #11: Contrary to what Pastor Small-Faith has said, the Lord Jesus did mention and even emphasize His resurrection appearances on a number of occasions. For example:

• In Luke 11:29-30 Jesus likened Himself to the prophet Jonah in the Old Testament who appeared to the Ninevites after being three days in the belly of the great fish.

• In John 14:19 Jesus told His disciples: “Before long, the world will not see Me anymore, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live.”

• Again Jesus said to His disciples: “In a little while you will see Me no more, and then after a little while you will see Me.” (Jn. 16:16)

• In Mark 16:6-7 some of Jesus’ followers go to His tomb after Sabbath. Upon arriving, they see the large stone that had sealed it was rolled away from the entrance. They enter and see an angel sitting there inside the empty tomb. “‘Don’t be alarmed,’ he said. ‘You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see Him, just as He told you.’”

• After His resurrection Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary when they went to visit His tomb, and He said to them: “Do not be afraid, Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see Me.” (Matthew 28:10.)

• After His resurrection Jesus appeared to His disciples and “He said to them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself! Touch Me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.’ When He had said this, He showed them His hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, He asked them, ‘Do you have anything here to eat?’ They gave Him a piece of broiled fish, and He took it and ate it in their presence. He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’ Then He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, ‘This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.’” (Lk. 24:37-48.) Augustine affirms: “What have we got in the gospel? That Christ rose again in the same body as was buried; that he was seen, that he was touched and handled, that to the disciples who thought he was a spirit he said, Feel and see, that a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you can see that I have (Lk 24:39). What does the apostle [Paul] oppose to this?”[46]

• In the Gospel of John, Jesus emphasized the physical reality of His resurrection by appearing to His disciples on three different occasions after He was raised from the dead (see John 20:19-21:14).

• In Galatians 1:11-12, the apostle Paul says that he received his gospel directly from Jesus Christ. And part of what Paul received from the Lord was the fact that Christ appeared to the twelve disciples (see 1 Corinthians 15:1-5). New Testament Greek scholar Dr. W. Harold Mare affirms: “Part of the gospel message Paul passed on to the Corinthians was eyewitness reports of the resurrection of Christ.”[47] This is the message Christ gave to the apostle Paul. So here again Jesus mentioned His resurrection appearances and even highlighted them in the gospel! Dr. George Meisinger, the founding president of Chafer Theological Seminary, affirms: “Paul plainly makes known a sufficient gospel. He received it (from Jesus Christ Himself, Galatians 1:11-12), preached/delivered it as did other apostles, and the Corinthians as thousands of others throughout the Roman Empire received/believed it. What did they preach and receive: Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, was buried, rose the third day according to the scriptures, and was seen by multiple eye-witnesses.”
  

 

Objection #12: Pastor Small-Faith actually said that Jesus never mentioned His burial therefore it is not part of the gospel.

ANSWER TO OBJECTION #12: Three examples will suffice to show that Small-Faith’s statement is false:

• In Matthew 26:11-12 Jesus specifically talks about His burial, even using the words “my burial”!

• And of course there is also the sign of Jonah the prophet that Jesus gave to the unbelieving Jews of His day (see Matt. 12:39-41) prior to His death, burial, and resurrection. Among other things, the sign of Jonah the prophet has reference to the burial of Christ. Dr. C. I. Scofield writes: “THE historical character of the man Jonah is vouched for by Jesus Christ (Mt. 12:39-41), as also that his preservation in the great fish was a ‘sign’ or type of our Lord’s own entombment and resurrection. Both are miraculous and both are equally credible.”[48] Free Grace theologian Roy B. Zuck affirms: “Jonah’s three days and three nights in the fish’s stomach illustrates Christ’s burial.”[49] Even Tom Stegall acknowledges that the sign of Jonah the prophet has reference to the burial of Christ. For example, Stegall says that “God prophetically and typologically ordained that Christ should be in the tomb for ‘three days and three nights’ (Jonah 1:17; Matt. 12:40; 26:61; 27:40, 63)”.[50]

• Jesus mentioned His burial when He gave Paul the gospel. In Galatians 1:11-12 the apostle Paul says that he received his gospel directly from Jesus Christ, and part of what Paul received from the Lord was the fact “that He was buried” (see 1 Corinthians 15:4). Dr. George Meisinger, the founding president of Chafer Theological Seminary (“a non-crossless Free Grace school”[51]), affirms: “Paul plainly makes known a sufficient gospel. He received it (from Jesus Christ Himself, Galatians 1:11-12), preached/delivered it as did other apostles, and the Corinthians as thousands of others throughout the Roman Empire received/believed it. What did they preach and receive: Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, was buried, rose the third day according to the scriptures, and was seen by multiple eye-witnesses.”[52] This is the message which Christ Himself gave to the apostle Paul. So here again Jesus mentioned His burial and even highlighted it in the gospel!

Objection #13: Pastor Small-Faith said that the apostle Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15 thirty years after Jesus’ resurrection so people didn’t have his gospel before that. 

Answer to Objection #13: This statement by Small-Faith shows how ignorant he really is of the passage in 1 Corinthians 15, because the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:1, “Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you” (1 Cor. 15:1). Paul is making it clear to the Corinthians that the gospel is not new information to them. Paul says it’s the same message he preached to them before (see Acts 18:1-11). Paul continues this same thought in verse 2 when he asks: “For what message did I preach to you, if you retain it?” (This is my personal translation of 1 Cor. 15:2; cf. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, which also translates Paul’s statement as a question. Some translations leave out the question and translate it as “if you hold firmly to the word which I preached to you”. Either way, Paul is reminding the Corinthians of the gospel which he had preached to them at some earlier point in time.) Paul makes it very clear (and it is plainly obvious) that people had his gospel before he reminded them of it in 1 Corinthians 15!
     

Furthermore, the apostle Paul clearly says that he “received” the gospel (1 Cor. 15:3). He didn’t start it – it didn’t originate or begin with him; he was simply passing along an earlier tradition. New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce affirms: “Paul was but repeating what he had received from those who were in Christ before him when he delivered to the people of Corinth ‘as of first importance’ the good news of Christ’s death, burial, and variously attested resurrection. 1 Cor. xv. 3 ff.”[53] In the book Jesus and the Gospel, theologian James Denney (1856-1917) similarly writes: “For what Paul taught in Corinth was the common Christian tradition (ver. 3 ff.); he had been taught it himself when he became a Christian, and in his turn he transmitted it to others. But Paul became a Christian not very long after the death of Christ—according to Harnack one year after, to Ramsay three or four, to Lightfoot perhaps six or seven. At a date so close to the alleged events we find that the fundamental facts of Christianity as taught in the primitive circle were these—that Christ died for our sins; that He was buried; that He rose again on the third day and remains in the state of exaltation; and that He appeared to certain persons. The mention of the burial is important in this connexion as defining what is meant by the rising. We see from it that it would have conveyed no meaning to Paul or to any member of the original Christian circle to say that it was the spirit of Christ which rose into new life, or that He rose again in the faith of His devoted followers, who could not bear the thought that for Him death should end all. The rising is relative to the grave and the burial, and if we cannot speak of a bodily resurrection we should not speak of resurrection at all. In the same connexion also we should notice the specification of the third day. This is perfectly definite, and it is perfectly guaranteed.”[54] Dr. Gary Habermas summarizes the truth well when he says: “Few conclusions in current study are more widely held by scholars than that, in 1 Corinthians 15:3, Paul records a very ancient tradition that actually predates his book, probably by a couple of decades. It could very well predate even Paul’s conversion to Christianity. After explaining that he received this from others, Paul succinctly reports the Gospel that was preached in early Christianity: Christ died for our sins and was buried. Afterwards, he was raised from the dead and appeared to many witnesses.”[55]
     

In response to Small-Faith’s objection, it makes little difference who Paul received the gospel from (from the Lord: Gal. 1:11-12; from the other apostles: Gal. 1:18; 1 Cor. 15:11; from others in Christ before him: Rom. 16:7, etc.); the point is that the gospel predates Paul. The gospel was being preached by the apostles and other Christians before Paul’s conversion to Christianity (see Gal. 1:23; 1 Cor. 15:1-11).

Objection #14: Pastor Small-Faith said that if an unsaved person didn’t believe Jesus was buried then that means Jesus must have been cremated in which case he thinks a resurrection would be impossible. (Small-Faith is reasoning that if an unsaved person believes that Christ was resurrected, they will also believe Christ was buried.)

Answer to Objection #14: A person’s beliefs are not always consistent and do not always make sense. Even Tom Stegall affirms: “Thankfully, the Lord does not require of us complete theological consistency in order to be saved.”[56] While it’s true that God does not require complete theological consistency in order to be saved, He does require us to believe the gospel. And contrary to what Stegall is saying, the burial of Christ is part of the gospel. Just because an unsaved person believes that Christ was raised from the dead doesn’t necessarily mean they believe He was buried. Especially if Christ’s burial is omitted when presenting the gospel! Or if the unsaved person is told that Christ’s burial isn’t really part of the gospel. And if an unsaved person doesn’t believe that Christ was buried, they don’t really believe the gospel! (See Isa. 53:9; Acts 13:29; 1 Cor. 15:4, etc.)
     

Furthermore, cremation is not the only alternative to burial as Pastor Small-Faith suggests it is. In fact, a dead person does not have to be buried or cremated at all! For example, a corpse can remain out in the open laying on top of the ground somewhere and then be resurrected from that spot. There is even a biblical example of this in Revelation 11 with the two witnesses. They were killed, their dead bodies lay in the street for three days and then God brought them back to life! (Another example is the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel chapter 37.)
     

The Bible indicates that even cremated Christians will be resurrected because the apostle Paul says that “our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body” (Phil. 3:20-21). It is no difficulty at all for God to resurrect those who have been cremated because with God all things are possible (Matt. 19:26; Mk. 10:27, 14:36; Lk. 18:27). Christian apologist and author Dr. Norman Geisler affirms: “Of course, it should be pointed out that cremation is no hindrance to the act, or event, of the resurrection. God, in His omnipotence, is certainly able, if He so chooses, to collect every atom and molecule, no matter where it is found in the universe, and reconstruct our same bodies in a glorified state.”[57] Is Small-Faith saying that cremation is something like the unpardonable sin, and that resurrection is impossible for those who have been cremated? Just because someone is cremated does not mean a resurrection is impossible.

Objection #15: Pastor Small-Faith said: “I think we are kind of knit-picking. It’s just semantics.”[58] Another person on staff at Small-Faith’s church told my friend that we are just too “picky, picky, picky!”

Answer to Objection #15: But either the burial of Christ is part of the gospel or it’s not. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong. Somebody is preaching the true gospel and somebody is preaching a distorted gospel (cf. Gal. 1:6-10; 2 Cor. 11:1-4). There is the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood like the Bible says in 1 John 4:6. Dr. Warren Wiersbe, the well-known and trusted Bible expositor and former pastor of Moody Memorial Church in Chicago, affirms: “We should test everything by the truth of the Gospel. What is the Gospel? Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. He was buried and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. He was seen alive by many witnesses. If you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you will be saved. (See 1 Corinthians 15.)”[59]
     

In response to Pastor Small-Faith’s statement that “we are kind of knit-picking,” I like what the famous New Testament Greek scholar A. T. Robertson says: “The preacher is of necessity a student of words.”[60] (It reminds me of how Paul in Galatians 3:16 makes a point to distinguish between the plural form of a word and the singular form!) And in regards to Small-Faith’s comment that “It’s just semantics”, Dr. Charles Ryrie makes a good rebuttal in his book So Great Salvation. In the chapter titled “Semantics Alert!” Ryrie writes: “A good choice of words is essential if we are to state the Gospel clearly and accurately. How often I have heard the retort, ‘It’s only a matter of semantics.’ In my experience it usually came from students using it as a defense mechanism to justify a poor answer to a question. And usually the question involved defining or explaining carefully the meaning of a biblical doctrine or concept. ‘A matter of semantics’ was supposed to excuse fuzzy thinking and a poor, if not wrong, choice of words. IS SEMANTICS IMPORTANT? Actually, semantics is not an excuse, nor is it incidental; it is the whole point. Semantics involves the study of meanings of words; so if a person uses words that do not convey the meaning he or she is attempting to express, then a different meaning comes across. If semantics is the study of meanings, then one has to be alert to semantics in all communication. For example, when an attorney draws up a contract, he or she must pay careful attention to semantics. The choice of words may determine whether or not the contract, if challenged, will remain in force or can be broken. The meaning of words – semantics – forms the basis for the validity and intention of that contract. Likewise, Bible students and preachers must pay careful attention to semantics. How carefully they express the meanings of verses, passages, and doctrines will determine the effectiveness and accuracy of communicating God’s message to others. (I am not speaking of the matter of differing interpretations. One can hold a wrong interpretation of a passage and yet express it clearly; so too may one have a correct interpretation and express it badly.). What is the purpose of language? Language was given by God for the purpose of His being able to communicate with man. To be sure, man has corrupted language; but God saw to it that He had sufficient vehicles in languages with which He could communicate to us and we to Him. Although language was confused at the Tower of Babel so that people could no longer understand each other’s speech, God nevertheless chose Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic as sufficient and adequate languages to convey His revelation of truth in the Bible. And, in the other direction, we find English and German and French and any other language on earth adequate to carry our communication in prayer to God. The Christian philosopher Gordon Clark wrote: ‘If God created man in His own rational image and endowed him with the power of speech, then a purpose of language, in fact the chief purpose of language, would naturally be the revelation of truth to man and the prayers of man to God. In a theistic philosophy one ought not to say that all language has been devised in order to describe and discuss the finite objects of our sense-experience….On the contrary, language was devised by God, that is, God created man rational for the purpose of theological expression. If we acknowledge that language came from God so that He can communicate to us (and we to Him), then semantics, which studies the meanings of words, is crucial if we wish to communicate His truth accurately.’ Furthermore, it seems to me that those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible ought especially to be concerned with accuracy in communicating the truth. All the Bible is without error and important to us. Certainly how we as Christians express the Gospel ought to be our greatest concern. We do not want to confuse or shortchange or obscure God’s good news of His grace – how He gave His Son so that we might have eternal life through faith in Him. Semantics is key in understanding and communicating the Gospel.”[61] Free Grace author Dr. Charlie Bing affirms, “as Ryrie points out, semantics is the battleground, and clarity in terms and definitions is essential.”[62]
     

In response to Small-Faith’s statement that we are “knit-picking” and his church staffer’s statement that we are being too “picky, picky, picky” – here are three reasons why I want to be picky about the gospel:

1. I want to be picky about the gospel because the devil is crafty (Gen. 3:1). We must remember that subtle errors are oftentimes the most dangerous ones. Pastor John Ashbrook has well said: “The most dangerous deviation is the one closest to your own position.”[63]
2. I want to be picky about the gospel because the goal is accuracy: “Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the Word of Truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
3. I want to be picky about the gospel because the Lord is picky. God is picky about the gospel! (See Gal. 1:6-10; 1 Cor. 1:17; 1 Cor. 15:1ff; 2 Cor. 4:2; 2 Cor. 11:3-4; Col. 4:3-4, etc.)

 

Objection # 16: The grave is not talked about as a good thing at the end of 1 Corinthians 15.

Answer to Objection #16: According to Small-Faith’s line of reasoning we could say that neither is death talked about as a good thing at the end of 1 Corinthians 15 (see 1 Cor. 15:26, 54, 55, etc.), but it’s still part of the gospel (see 1 Corinthians 15:3). But let’s take a closer look at the text.
     

In 1 Corinthians 15:55 the King James Version (KJV) reads: “Oh grave, where is your victory?” – but the Greek word for “grave” in the Received Text (the Greek text from which we get the King James Version) is Hades. Although some mistake Hades for the grave, they are two different places. (Hades is the abode or realm of the dead, “the common receptacle of disembodied spirits,” as Thayer has said in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.[64] Similarly, H. A. Ironside says in his commentary on Psalm 16 that “Hades…is the place for disembodied spirits between death and resurrection, that is, the unseen world.”[65]) Hence, 1 Corinthians 15:55 in the New King James Version (NKJV) reads: “O Hades, where is your victory?” But even this is probably not the best nor the most accurate reading. There is general agreement among New Testament scholars that the correct reading of 1 Corinthians 15:55 should be “O death” (Greek thanato), not “O Hades”. The best and oldest New Testament Greek manuscripts read thanatos, not Hades. Thus the NIV more accurately translates verse 55: “Where, O death, is your victory?”
     

Here’s what some New Testament scholars have written concerning the correct reading of 1 Corinthians 15:55:

• A. T. Robertson: “O death (thanato). Second instance. Here Paul changes Hades of the LXX [Septuagint] for Hebrew Sheol (Hosea 13:14) to ‘death’. Paul never uses Hades.” (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:55.)

• Marvin Vincent: “O grave (hade). Which is the reading of the Septuagint. The correct reading is thanate, O death. So Rev. [RSV.] Hades does not occur in Paul’s writings. In Romans 10:7 he uses abyss. Edwards thinks that this is intentional, and suggests that Paul, writing to Greeks, may have shunned the ill-omened name [Hades] which people dreaded to utter.” (Vincent, Word Studies, commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:55.)

• Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown: “For ‘O grave,’ the oldest manuscripts and versions read, ‘O death,’ the second time [in 1 Cor. 15:55].” (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:55.)

• C. G. Findlay: “Paul freely adapts the words of Hosea, repeating thanate in the second line, where Hosea writes sheol (LXX hade), since death is the enemy he pursues throughout (Edwards notes that hades never occurs in Paul’s Epistles)”. (Findlay, W. R. Nicoll, Editor, The Expositor’s Greek New Testament, 5 Vols., Vol. 2, p. 942.)

• W. E. Vine: “In 1 Cor. 15:55 the most authentic mss. have thanatos, ‘death,’ in the 2nd part of the verse, instead of Hades, which the A.V. [KJV] wrongly renders ‘grave’ (‘hell,’ in the marg.).” (Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, entry for HADES.)

• C. I. Scofield: In The Scofield Reference Bible, the marginal note for “grave” (1 Cor. 15:55, KJV) reads “death.”[66]

• Spiros Zodhiates: “The change from ‘grave’ in the King James Version to ‘death’ in most of the modern translations is justified, since the Greek word hadees, which occurs in the Textus Receptus, does not occur in most manuscripts, and Paul never uses the word. Therefore the text we accept is, ‘Where thy, death, the victory? Where thy, death, the sting?’ This is the literal translation in the exact order in which the words occur in the Greek text.”[67]

 

For those who follow the Textus Receptus or Received Text (the Greek text underlying the King James Version), it’s important to remember that even if the correct reading in 1 Corinthians 15:55 is Hades (as opposed to thanatos) – Hades is not the grave. In his book An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, biblical scholar and theologian W. E. Vine (1873-1949) writes: “HADES (hades), the region of departed spirits of the lost (but including the blessed dead in periods preceding the ascension of Christ)…It corresponds to ‘Sheol’ in the OT. In the A.V. [KJV] of the O.T. and N.T., it has been unhappily rendered ‘hell,’ e.g., Ps. 16:10; or ‘the grave,’ e.g. Gen. 37:35; or ‘the pit,’ Num. 16:30, 33; in the N.T. the Revisers [i.e. the RSV] have always used the rendering ‘Hades;’ in the O.T. they have not been uniform in the translation, e.g., in Isa. 14:15, ‘hell’ (marg., ‘Sheol’); usually they have ‘Sheol’ in the text and ‘the grave’ in the margin. It never denotes the grave, nor is it the permanent region of the lost; in point of time it is, for such, intermediate between decease and the doom of Gehenna. For the condition, see Luke 16: 23-31.…Note: In 1 Cor. 15:55 the most authentic mss. have thanatos, death, in the 2nd part of the verse, instead of Hades, which the A.V. wrongly renders ‘grave’ (‘hell,’ in the marg.).”[68] Dr. H. A. Ironside (1876-1951) likewise sees a difference between Hades and the grave. Commenting on the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke chapter 16, Ironside writes: “Others say ‘You [Mr. Ironside] are mistaken when you think of Hades as a condition in which men are found after death. Hades is simply the grave.’ I do not believe this for one moment. Scripture, I am certain, teaches the very opposite.”[69] Similarly, William R. Newell (responding to Bullingerism) writes: “Bullinger says: ‘Hades, – we might call it Grave-dom. There is not a place where the rendering grave would not be appropriate.’ (for Hades). Now Matthew 16:18 at once proves this utterly false! Church saints’ bodies have been buried in graves constantly; but Hades, the region at the earth’s center (Matthew 12:40; Acts 2:27, R.V.), since our Lord’s resurrection, has not admitted one saint into its gates: ‘The Gates of Hades shall not prevail against it’ (the Church).”[70] Thus it’s quite clear that there is a distinction between Hades and the grave and the one should not be confused with the other. The bottom line is that once again Pastor Small-Faith is not going back to the original Greek. What’s worse, his objection is based on an incorrect translation (i.e. the word “grave” in the KJV). It’s no wonder that the Free Grace author William R. Newell (writing in 1938) advises: “Always read the Revised Version about the words Sheol – Hades: for it transliterates them. The King James simply obscures them by various renderings [such as ‘hell’ and ‘grave’].”[71] All in all, it’s clear that Pastor Small-Faith is unfamiliar with the Greek text of 1 Corinthians 15 and his objection is groundless in light of the Greek.
     

We must never forget that despite the sadness associated with death and burial, it is a reverent and good act to give someone “a proper burial” (Eccl. 6:3, NIV). Remember how the devil fought with Michael the archangel over the body of Moses? (See Deut. 34:5, 6; Jude 9.) The devil no doubt had evil schemes planned, but the Bible says that God buried Moses (Deut. 34:5, 6). This was of course a good and decent act. To say otherwise is to charge God with wrong doing!
     

And we know it’s good and honorable to burial our loved ones, don’t we? We know this because the Bible teaches that it’s honorable to bury someone and dishonorable to leave a person unburied. (See Gen. 23:4, 25:9, 49:29-32; Deut. 10:6, 21:22-23, 28:26, 34:6; 2 Sam. 21:10-14; 1 Kings 14:10-14, 16:4, 21:23-24; 2 Kings 9:34-37; Psa. 79:1-4; Eccl. 6:3; Isa. 14:19-20, 53:9; Jer. 7:33, 8:1-2, 16:4, 16:6, 22:19, 25:33, 36:30; Ezek. 29:5; Matt. 26:1-13; Jn. 19:38-42; Heb. 11:22; Rev. 11:9, etc.)   
     

Furthermore, why would Joseph of Arimethea and Nicodemus want to bury Jesus (see John 19:38-42) if it was a bad thing? Why would they ask to bury Jesus if it wasn’t a good thing? These were Jesus’ followers (Jn. 19:38-39), not His enemies! A. T. Robertson affirms: “It was fitting that two members of the Sanhedrin should give Jesus a decent burial. Nicodemus and Joseph laid him away in simple dignity. Where were the disciples?”[72]
     

In the article “Christ’s Grave and the Christian’s”, theologian H. C. G Moule expounds on the text of John 19:42, “There laid they Jesus.” Moule writes as follows: “MUCH emphasis is laid in Scripture, and also in the great Creeds of the Church, upon the Burial of the Lord. Each Gospel of the Four gives us a careful account, down to the details, of His funeral. St Paul expressly refers to it…when he sums up his ‘Gospel’ to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xv. 4). The Apostles’ Creed, and again the Nicene Creed (I use the common names of those two precious confession of the Church’s faith), both expressly recite that He was buried. Undoubtedly the main reason of this lies in the fact that the Burial put an authoritative seal, so to speak, upon the Death, and thus accentuated the supreme event of the Resurrection. The grave of Joseph did not indeed logically prove that the Lamb, on the ‘green hill’ just above it, had veritably died; for the living have been buried by misadventure [accident]. But at least it threw the otherwise provable death into a solemn public prominence; it announced it as absolutely complete. So when, on the next day but one [i.e. on the third day], then and there, that grave was found empty; when friends and adversaries alike, watching each other, looked in vain for the linen-wound Body; the Resurrection was fully evidenced to be no mere fancy, raised by an impression of uncertain causes on excitable emotions; nor again any mere putting forth, however wonderfully, of a spiritual but disembodied force. It was the triumph of the Lord’s whole Being over death. His body had been placed within the clasp of the grave. And His Body no more than His Soul was left within it. But also in a way most precious, while subsidiary, the Burial of the Lord claims its place in the Bible and the Creeds as a fact of tenderest application to the suffering heart. Do you know what it is to stand, or sit, or kneel, heart-stricken, beside some mounded spot of green earth, unutterably dear? More mournful still, is it yours to be far away from it, perhaps separated from it by lands and seas, while you carry ever within you the consciousness that there it is—the grave, the silent holder of all that remains below of that beloved presence? Ah, let us speak reverently of such griefs. But let us meet them always, persistently, with the Lord Jesus, and His burial. He died for us; there is our peace with God. He rose from death, and is alive for ever-more; there is our eternal certainty that we live, and shall live, with Him, ‘in the power of an endless life.’ But also, between the two, He was buried. So that dread thing, the grave, is itself transfigured. Not only will it be grand, one wonderful day, to have done with it for ever, and to inhabit that great City which needs no cemetery, the heavenly Jerusalem; but even now, while the grave lasts, it is altered, it is transfigured, because in it the silent Lord, in the reality of His human death, lay before us. [Does not God tell us in Revelation 21:5, ‘Behold, I am making all things new!’] I love to think of every Christian churchyard, every Christian grave, as linked spiritually to Joseph’s garden; a sort of extension of it, so that as it were the Lord’s sepulcher—now open to the eternal day—is always one among the sepulchers of His people. I have tried to put it thus in simple verse:

There is one resting-place, and only one, 
For those who fall asleep in God’s dear Son.

To our weak thought indeed and sense’s eye

Far distant each from each may seem to lie;

By Thames, by Nile, or on the silent breast

Of ancient China softly laid to rest.

But faith and spirit see them, each and all,

Carried to one green spot for burial,

Where erst, unconscious of its glorious doom,

Arimathean Joseph carved his tomb,

And fenced the ground with marble in, and bade

Cypress and olive weave a glimmering shade.

There soon he bore his Savior, newly slain,

And there the sleeping Christ arose again,

And trode the paths in victory serene,

And turn’d to heaven the grief of Magdalene.

He now, from every land and every deep,

Brings His beloved there, and gives them sleep,

Still gather’d up in peace, while ages run;

A countless host, and yet in Him but one.

There, seal’d awhile, now open, the holy cell,

Where folded grave clothes lie, where angels dwell,

Assures the mourner of His life and power

Who for His saints prepares their rising-hour.

And He meantime, in glory and in grace,

Immortal Gardener of the flowery place,

Walks ’midst His people’s tombs, and all the while

His eyes, so wet of old, foreseeing, smile.”[73]

Objection # 17: The burial is not good news.
 

Answer to Objection #17: This objection has been made by another groundless gospel advocate besides Pastor Small-Faith. Tom Stegall writes that “by itself, it is not ‘good news’ to state that a man was buried”.[74] Notice that Stegall makes a point to say “by itself….” And so in discussing this objection it’s important to remember that we’re not talking about death per se, we’re talking about burial. There is already a dead body; now then, is it good to bury the corpse or not? Pastor Small-Faith and other groundless gospel advocates go so far as to say that burial is not good news. Apparently, it’s not good news that God buried His Son as the Scriptures foretold! (See Deut. 21:22-23; Isa. 53:9; Matt. 27:57-60; Jn. 19:38-42, etc.). Would they rather give Jesus “the burial of an ass” (Jer. 22:19, KJV), in other words, no burial?
     

Groundless gospel people say the burial is not good news when, in fact, according to the Bible, the opposite is true. It’s not good news to deprive someone of burial! The Bible says, “A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he” (Eccl. 6:3, NIV). In the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Dr. Joe Haag affirms: “To allow a body to decay or be desecrated above the ground was highly dishonorable (1 Kings 14:10-14; 2 Kings 9:34-37), and any corpse found by the wayside was required to be buried (2 Sam. 21:10-14).[75] Charles Taylor concurs and says: “The Hebrews were, at all times, very careful in the burial of their dead; to be deprived of burial, was thought one of the greatest dishonors, or causes of unhappiness, that could befall any man; (Eccl. 6:3.)…and the souls of such persons were believed to be plunged into hell.”[76] Theologian Nathaniel Micklem similarly writes: “If a man’s body was unburied, he could not rest in Sheol; to lack burial, therefore, was the most cruel fate.”[77]
     

The Bible makes it very clear that it is a kind and good act to bury a dead person. We see in the book of Genesis that Abraham buried his beloved wife (Gen. 23:3-20). In the book of Hebrews, Joseph is praised as a man of faith for he “made mention of the departure of the children of Israel [out of Egypt], giving instructions concerning his bones” to be buried in the Promised Land (Heb. 11:22). David, a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14; Acts 13:22), said to the men of Jabesh-Gilead who buried Saul: “You are blessed of the LORD, for you have shown this kindness to your lord, to Saul, and have buried him. And now may the LORD show kindness and truth to you. I also will repay you this kindness, because you have done this thing.” (2 Sam. 2:4-6) Of course, kindness is a fruit of the Spirit: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness” (Gal. 5:22).
     

More examples from the Bible could be cited. In 2 Chronicles 32:33 we read that “Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the chiefest of the sepulchres of the sons of David: and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honour at his death” (KJV). After John the Baptist was beheaded, “his disciples came and took away the body and buried it” (Matt. 14:12). And similarly, after the church’s first martyr was stoned to death by the unbelieving Jews, the Bible says that “Godly men buried Stephen” (Acts 8:2, NIV). The Bible likewise indicates that Jesus was buried not as a punishment but as an honor: “They intended to bury him with criminals, but he ended up in a rich man’s tomb, because he had committed no violent deeds, nor had he spoken deceitfully” (Isa. 53:9, NET Bible). The Apostle Paul corroborates this in Acts 13:29 when he says that “they took him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb.” The Greek word for “tomb” is mnēmeion which literally means “memorial”.[78] And so we see that the Lord Jesus is honored with a decent burial in a rich man’s tomb.
     

When Pastor Small-Faith says that the burial is not good news, he is isolating Christ’s burial apart from the other facts of the gospel (see, for example: Acts 13:26-41; 1 Cor. 15:3-5, etc.). But that won’t do because as the saying goes, “A text without a context is a pretext for error.” Christ’s burial is stated in the context of the gospel and in the context of the Scriptures. Concerning the latter, the burial of Christ is a direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies such as Deuteronomy 21:22-23 (cf. Gal. 3:13), Psalm 16:10-11 (cf. Acts 2:25-28) and Isaiah 53:9 (cf. Matt. 27:57-60). Thus we can say, it’s good news that the Scriptures have been fulfilled! More pointedly, Jesus’ own words in Matthew 12:38-41 find their fulfillment in the gospel: Good News! And it’s good news that in the grave, Jesus’ body would “not see corruption”—His body would not undergo decay (see Psa. 16:10b; cf. Acts 2:27b). Bengel affirms: “The grave was to Him not the destined receptacle of corruption, but an apartment fitted for entering into life (Acts 2:26-28).”[79] Furthermore, (as Bengel noted) the prophecies of Christ’s burial anticipate His resurrection (see, for example: Psa. 16:10-11; Isa. 53:9-10; Matt. 12:38-41, etc.). Again, how is that not good news? It is good news! Furthermore, it is good news that Jesus was given an honorable burial with the rich “because He had done no violence nor was any deceit found in His mouth” (Isa. 53:9). Jesus was given an honorable burial because He was and is worthy of it! How is that not good news? It is good news! “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing” (Rev. 5:12). 
     

Someone might object, “It’s not good news because He died.” Well, that proves my point then doesn’t it—that someone could argue that the death of Christ is not good news but it’s still included in the gospel. These groundless gospel advocates have a double standard because they are not being consistent in their reasoning in regards to the death and burial of Christ. They are not applying their reductionist reasoning consistently to both the death and the burial of Christ. They are oftentimes, as in this instance, applying their reductionist reasoning to the burial of Christ but not to the fact of the death of Christ. The truth is, both Christ’s death and His burial are part of the Good News and must be understood in that context, not in isolation from it.
     

If the burial of Christ is not good news, why does the apostle Paul specifically include it in his “good news” in Acts 13:29 and 1 Corinthians 15:4? The answer of course is that Christ’s burial is, in fact, good news!
     

Pastor Small-Faith’s contention that the burial is not good news reminds me of the charade of Calvinism. The Bible says that Christ died for the whole world (1 Jn. 2:2). But Calvinism says that He really didn’t die for everyone. And so they say in a way He did die for everyone but in a way He didn’t die for everyone. And so it’s double-talk. Is the gospel a farce in which God on the one hand includes Christ’s burial in the Good News but on the other hand excludes it? Is God guilty of pretense and deceit in giving us the gospel? Or is God somehow unclear and vague about the facts? By no means! See Colossians 4:4; 1 Corinthians 1:17; 2 Corinthians 4:2.
     

In conclusion to this whole discussion, the words of Dr. Norman Geisler are appropriate when he says: “Jesus’ Burial Was According to the Gospel. 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.”[80]
 

Objection #18: The burial of Christ is not mentioned that much.

Answer to Objection #18: Christian theologian and author H. G. C. Moule highlights the proper perspective when he writes: “MUCH emphasis is laid in Scripture, and also in the great Creeds of the Church, upon the Burial of the Lord. Each Gospel of the Four gives us a careful account, down to the details, of His funeral. St Paul expressly refers to it…when he sums up his ‘Gospel’ to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xv. 4).”[81]
     

It is amazing that in such a short creed as the one Paul recites in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, mention is made of Christ’s burial. In other words, in a creed where words are used sparingly, where whole areas of doctrine are either assumed or passed over in silence, where the bulk of Christ’s earthly ministry, His teachings and His miracles are not even mentioned, specific mention is made of His burial. This is exceedingly significant! And furthermore, let’s now look at the later Gospel narratives. Each of these four also includes in their narratives the events and details of Christ’s burial. Whoever says that Christ’s burial is not mentioned that much is really not being honest with the Scriptures. 
     

What about in prophecy? Is Christ’s burial mentioned in the Old Testament? It most certainly is! Take a look at Isaiah 53:9. Other passages in the Old Testament could also be cited, such as Psalm 16:8-11, Psalm 22, and Psalm 40. Concerning the latter, Dr. Scofield writes: “The 40th Psalm speaks of Messiah, Jehovah’s Servant, obedient unto death. The Psalm begins with the joy of Christ in resurrection (vs. 1, 2). He has been in the horrible pit of the grave, but has been brought up. Verses 3-5 are His resurrection testimony, His ‘new song.’ Verses 6 and 7 are retrospective. When sacrifice and offering had become abominable because of the wickedness of the people (Isa. 1:10-15), then the obedient Servant came to make the pure offering (vs. 7-17; Heb. 10:5-17).”[82]
     

But how many times does the burial of Christ have to be mentioned before it becomes part of the gospel according to Pastor Small-Faith? Not surprisingly, he never says! Small-Faith’s statement smacks of (i.e. has the characteristics of) Roman Catholicism and high-minded Popishness because he’s saying that he doesn’t think Christ’s burial is mentioned enough to be part of the gospel, when in fact the Bible never makes that a requirement. Small-Faith is, in effect, measuring the yardstick by the cloth (to borrow the metaphor from William Tyndale) – and of course that's backwards! If God says something even one time in the Bible – it’s true! As the old saying goes, “God said it. I believe it. That settles it!” The Psalmist says of the Lord God: “All your words are true” (Psa. 119:160). And the apostle Paul says in Romans 3:4, “Let God be true and every man a liar. As it is written: ‘So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.’” And of course, as I have already pointed out, Christ’s burial is mentioned as part of the gospel not just one time in the Bible but actually quite a number of times in the Scriptures. 
 

Objection #19: The burial of Christ is not mentioned as much as His death and resurrection.

Answer to Objection #19: But similarly, we could say that the resurrection of Christ is not mentioned as much as His death. So are we to assume that Christ’s resurrection is not part of the gospel because it isn’t mentioned as much as His death? No, of course not. But this is the reductionist reasoning of groundless gospel advocates when it comes to the burial of Christ. They are not consistent with their reasoning because they have a theological presupposition that the burial of Christ is not part of the gospel. If they were consistent they would say, “Neither the burial nor the resurrection are mentioned as much as Christ’s death, but both are still elements of the gospel.”[83]
 

Objection #20: You are isolating yourself from the world.

Answer to Objection #20: “Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10-11; cf. 1 Thess. 2:4). And doesn’t the Bible say in Matthew 3:3 that John the Baptist was “the voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare ye the way of the LORD! Make His paths straight!’” May I say: let’s make the gospel straight! I hear a lot of catchy sermons today: “The Gospel in 25 Words,” “The Gospel in 10 Words,” “The Gospel in 8 Words,” “The Gospel in One Minute,”—excuse me? What about The Gospel in the Bible? In 1 Corinthians 15, God has already given us the gospel: “the full content of the New Testament gospel—including the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of the Lord Jesus Christ.”[84] God said it, I believe it, and that settles it! The late Baptist preacher Adrian Rogers has well said: “We need people to stand up and say, ‘Thus saith the Lord!'”[85] And Billy Graham has said: “One with God is a majority.” And of course there is more than just one person proclaiming the true gospel today. We have a good example of this in the Old Testament. Remember the account of Elijah the prophet? The Bible says that “everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Rom. 15:4).  Elijah thought he was the only true prophet of God in Israel, but God told him that there were still 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. And so even if we think we’re the only ones preaching the truth, there are others out there preaching it too.
     

The truth is, the orthodox view of the gospel is not Pastor Small-Faith’s groundless interpretation of it! Scot McKnight, a New Testament scholar and historian of early Christianity, has well said: “The foundation for Christian orthodoxy is 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 (most folks say 15:1-4, but I’m not sure that is the most natural of stopping points): ‘1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.’ I want to make a few observations….First, the gospel is a narration of the saving events in the life of Jesus as they bring to fulfillment the Scriptures of Israel. Second, the events in Jesus’ life are his life, his death, his burial, his resurrection and his appearances. Third, this narrative forms the basis for salvation, understood here to include the forgiveness of sins. These events accomplish that salvation and the gospel therefore involves the appeal to believe in God’s redemption through these events. Fourth, all of the early articulations of ‘orthodoxy’—from the The Apostolic Tradition (Hippolytus of Rome) to Nicea to Chalcedon—are elaborations of this narrative. Fifth, orthodoxy, then, in spite of the yacking of some today, is not speculative theology drawn simply from current philosophical debates but elaborations of the gospel, often in response to threats to that gospel. Sixth, what is at stake in denying orthodoxy is not simply the ‘right ideas’ or ‘quaint’ ideas but the gospel itself. That which threatens the gospel is articulated by those who are most concerned with the gospel. Seventh, theology that is done without the framing of the gospel narration of 1 Cor 15 is not gospel orthodoxy. In other words, orthodoxy is the faithful unfolding of that original gospel narrative of 1 Cor 15 and orthodoxy is faithfulness as well to the major unfolding of that gospel, including such things as the Apostles’ Creed, Nicea, Chalcedon, and the fundamental insights of the Reformation’s solas as they seek to elaborate the gospel narration.”[86] Similarly, in the book Walvoord: A Tribute, Dr. John Reed of Dallas Theological Seminary affirms: “Throughout the history of the church the biblical definition of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 has been the accepted view.”[87] This “has been the faith of martyrs and missionaries and is the core of evangelical preaching.”[88] 

References: 

[1] A. T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, p. 101, underlining added.

[2] William R. Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994), p. 21. Note: This book was originally published in Chicago by Moody Press, © 1938.

[3] Ibid., p. 24.

[4] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008), p. 363, italics and brackets his, underlining added.

[5] William Lane Craig, “Doctrine of Christ (Part 14), The Work of Christ – His Resurrection,” Reasonable Faith with William Lane Craig website, https://web.archive.org/web/20150224034346/http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s6-14 (accessed March 24, 2014), underlining added.

[6] A. T. Robertson, “The Minister And His Greek New Testament.” The Biblical Review (New York: Bible Teachers Training School, 1919): 4:113.

[7] S. Lewis Johnson, “The First Epistle To The Corinthians.” Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, Editors, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 1255.

[8] Charles R. Swindoll, General Editor, Don Campbell, Wendell Johnston, John Walvoord, John Witmer, The Theological Wordbook (Nashville: Word Publishing, 2000), “Foreword,” p. xi.

[9] Donald K. Campbell is currently president emeritus of Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) and professor emeritus of Bible Exposition. He has served over 50 years at DTS. In addition, he has served on the boards of numerous evangelical ministries, schools, mission agencies; has written a number of books and contributed to numerous articles and book reviews in theological journals, especially Bibliotheca Sacra.

[10] Donald K. Campbell (“DKC”), The Theological Wordbook, p. 142.

[11] Pastor Jim Scudder Jr., “The Gospel in 8 Words,” 1 Corinthians 15:1-7 (June 14, 2015). Unfortunately, Pastor Jim Scudder Jr.’s “Gospel in 8 Words” omits Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances. Even the references to “the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3, 4) are excluded from his mini-gospel! In other words, Pastor Jim Scudder Jr.’s “Gospel in 8 Words” is a partial Gospel – it’s not the whole Gospel. New Testament Greek scholar Henry Alford writes (quoting 1 Corinthians 15:1): “I declare...the (whole) Gospel: not merely the Death and Resurrection of Christ, which were en protois [priority] parts of it”. (Alford, The Greek Testament, 4 Vols., Vol. 2, p. 602, bold his, ellipsis added; cf. Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, 2 Vols., Vol. 2, p. 229.) Darrel Bock (research professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary) affirms: “In fact, only to speak of Jesus dying for sin – even to speak of Jesus dying for sin and rising again – is to give only about half of the gospel message….Paul in 1 Cor 15:3-5 summarizes the gospel as the fact that Jesus ‘died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas.” (Bock, Recovering the Real Lost Gospel: Reclaiming the Gospel as Good News [Nashville: B and H Publishing Group, 2010], p. 3, italics his, ellipsis added; cf. Bock, The Bible Knowledge Word Study: Acts – Ephesians [Colorado Springs: Cook Communications Ministries, 2006], pp. 310-311.) In spite of Pastor Jim Scudder Jr.’s “Gospel in 8 Words,” the point I’m making in response to Small-Faith’s objection is that even Pastor Jim Scudder, Jr. agrees that the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 is the message of salvation, i.e. the saving message.

[12] William R. Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1994), pp. 18-19, ellipsis his. Note: This book was originally published in Chicago by Moody Press, © 1938.

[13] Ibid., p. 19, capitalization and italics his.

[14] Dennis Rokser, Let’s Preach the Gospel (Duluth: Duluth Bible Church), p. 23.

[15] S. Lewis Johnson, “The First Epistle To The Corinthians.” Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, Editors, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990), p. 1255.

[16] Zane Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981), pp. 85-86, first and second brackets added. In regards to Hodges’ exegetical insights on 1 Corinthians 15:2, I’m in agreement with another Free Grace advocate who said: “My opinion is that Zane Hodges explained 1 Cor. 15:2 exceedingly well, evidently before he changed his mind about the gospel.” (Art, comment at 3/28/08 12:07 PM under the post “1 Corinthians 15.” Rose’s Reasonings blog, March 28, 2008, http://rosesreasonings.blogspot.com/2008/03/1-corinthians-15.html#c5057204266597401204 (accessed October 13, 2017).

[17] Thomas L. Stegall, “The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel Pt. 9,” The Grace Family Journal (Special Edition 2008): p. 8.

[18] Ibid., p. 8.

[19] Ibid. p. 9, italics his.

[20] Ibid., p. 18.

[21] Herbert Lockyer, All the Books and Chapters of the Bible, p. 173.

[22] For more information see my article: “The Romans Road Leads to Isaiah 53” (Free Grace Free Speech blog).

[23] William R. Newell, “GALATIANS 1 and 2, or Paul’s Defense of His Gospel,” p. 8. http://www.4himnet.com/bnyberg/Pauls%20Defense%20of%20His%20Gospel%20-%20Newell.pdf

[24] Walter Martin, “Walter Martin’s last TBN Appearance – Part 3 of 5” (time stamp: 8:15), YouTube.

[25] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1931), 6 Vols., Vol. 4, pp. 186-187.

[26] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, commentary on Romans 2:16. Note: For more information see endnote 42 (below).

[27] Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), p. 115, italics his.

[28] Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link In Systematic Theology (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries Press, 1989), pp. 590-591, italics his.

[29] Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 727, italics his.

[30] Quoted by Dr. C. I. Scofield in the “Introduction” to The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909, 1917), p. iii.

[31] A. T. Robertson, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning God the Father, p. 141.

[32] Jim Scudder Jr. and Phil Stringer, Evangelism Made Simple (Lake Zurich: Victory in Grace, 2016), first ellipsis added.

[33] Dennis Rokser, Seven Key Questions About Water Baptism (Duluth: Duluth Bible Church), p. 5.

[34] David Jeremiah, Sanctuary: Finding Moments of Refuge in the Presence of God (Nashville: Integrity Publishers, 2002), pg. 277.

[35] For more information see my blog post titled: “The Historical Credibility of the Gospel”.

[36] For those who may think that the topic of “progressive revelation” is not relevant to this discussion, even Tom Stegall affirms: “The doctrine of ‘progressive revelation’ is integral to the whole question of what constitutes the content of saving faith today.” (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 156.)

[37] Gary Habermas, “The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus,” 4truth.net website, https://web.archive.org/web/20160326213847/http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952867 (accessed April 1, 2012).

[38] Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 271, italics his. In a twist of irony, Stegall actually bears witness against the groundless gospel position when he says that “some Christians [e.g. J. B. Hixson, Getting the Gospel Wrong, first edition, p. 80] insist…that a lost person can be saved by believing only part of the gospel. But Scripture nowhere endorses such a possibility. In the Bible, people are never said to be saved by believing ‘part of’ the gospel but only by believing ‘the gospel.’ According to the New Testament, people either believe the gospel or they don’t. To reject it in part is to reject it in whole.” (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, pp. 563-564, italics his.)

[39] For more information on the hoti content clause and the content of the Gospel, see my articles: “Getting the Gospel Right”, Part 1 & Part 2.

[40] Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 587, emphasis added.

[41] Dennis Rokser, Seven Key Questions About Water Baptism (Duluth: Duluth Bible Church), p. 5.

[42] Rick Whitmire, co-founder of Grace Biblical Seminary (a Free Grace seminary in McDonough, Georgia) affirms: “Romans 1:16 – ‘For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the (Gentiles).’…The Apostle Paul Defines the Gospel: 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 – ‘For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ DIED for our sins according to the scriptures: And that He was BURIED, and that He ROSE again the third day according to the scripture: And that He was SEEN…’ The apostle Paul summarizes the most basic ingredients of the gospel message, namely, the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of the resurrected Christ. a. This is the one place where the historical elements of the gospel are clearly defined. Our responsibility is to make the gospel clear and Biblical. But in order to do so, we must have a clear understanding of what the gospel means in the New Testament. These verses, give us the heart of the gospel. Note the four clauses introduced in verses 3-5. b. The Apostle Paul in defining the gospel uses four verbs: 1). Christ Died….2). Christ was Buried….3). Christ Rose….4). Christ was Seen.” (Whitmire, “The Facts Presentation,” GO Tell EVANGELISM, CHAPTER 2, OUR WITNESS FOR CHRIST [dated “07-15-03”], underlining, capitalization, and second ellipsis his, http://tgcministry.com/gotell/gts_2.htm [accessed April 5, 2012]. Note: In the original article much of Whitmire’s statement is in bold print.) Dr. S. Lewis Johnson has made a similar statement to Whitmire (concerning Rom. 1:16 and 1 Cor. 15:1-5). S. Lewis Johnson remarks: “[In Romans 1:16] The apostle does not set forth the details of his ‘gospel.’ The interpreter, however, is upon reasonably safe ground in assuming that they are found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5. The gospel is the good news of Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearances, together with the apostolic explanation of the doctrinal significance of these great facts.” (S. Lewis Johnson, “The Gospel Paul Preached.” Bibliotheca Sacra 128 [October 1971]: p. 330.) Free Grace theologian William R. Newell likewise looks back to 1 Corinthians 15 to define the gospel in the book of Romans (see Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, pp. 6, 20, 24, etc.).

[43] C. I. Scofield, What Do the Prophets Say?, pp. 57-58.

[44] In the footnotes to Psalm 40 in The Scofield Reference Bible, Dr. Scofield writes: “The 40th Psalm speaks of Messiah, Jehovah’s Servant, obedient unto death. The Psalm begins with the joy of Christ in resurrection (vs. 1, 2). He has been in the horrible pit of the grave, but has been brought up. Verses 3-5 are His resurrection testimony, His ‘new song.’ Verses 6 and 7 are retrospective. When sacrifice and offering had become abominable because of the wickedness of the people (Isa. 1:10-15), then the obedient Servant came to make the pure offering (vs. 7-17; Heb. 10:5-17). See Psalm 41., next in order of the Messianic Psalms.” (Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible [1909], p. 618, note 1.)

[45] Walter Martin, “Dr. Walter Martin – Kingdom of the Cults Part 1/7 – Introduction to the Cults” (time stamp approx. 22:00 - 25:30 min.), YouTube.

[46] Augustine, Sermon 362, “On the Resurrection of the Dead,” Edmund Hill and John E. Rotelle, Editors, Augustinian Heritage Institute, The Works of Saint Augustine (New York: New City Press, 1995), 3 Parts, 10 Vols., Part 3, Vol. 10, p. 250. Concerning Augustine, J. Vernon McGee writes: “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 [Pasadena: Thru the Bible Radio Network], p. 13.)

[47] W. Harold Mare, “1 Corinthians.” Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 12 Vols., Vol. 10, p. 282.

[48] C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909, 1917), p. 943.

[49] Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 181.

[50] Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 727, italics his.

[51] Ibid., p. 577.

[52] George Meisinger, “The Gospel Paul Preached: A Church Age Model of Evangelistic Content,” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal (2009): pp. 12-13, ellipsis added. https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B36y94yKNvYpYzA0YzE0YWYtNDM3NC00ZGZkLWI4ZGUtOWI1Zjk2YTc2NmFl&hl=en&pli=1

[53] F. F. Bruce, “When is a Gospel Not a Gospel?” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 45.2 (March 1963): p. 324, http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bjrl/gospel_bruce.pdf. Note: The reference to 1 Cor. 15:3ff is cited in the footnotes.

[54] James Denney, Jesus and the Gospel (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908), pp. 102-103.

[55] Gary Habermas, “The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus,” 4truth.net website, https://web.archive.org/web/20160303053801/http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952867 (accessed April 1, 2012).

[56] Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 739.

[57] Norman L. Geisler and Douglas E. Potter, “Christian Burial: A Case for Burial,” Christian Research Journal.

[58] Semantics is the study of the meaning of language, such as the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.

[59] Warren Wiersbe, “Sanctified By Correction,” 2ProphetU website, https://web.archive.org/web/20180727083240/http://2prophetu.com/templates/_2prophetu2/details.asp?id=35585&PG=resources&CID=19387 (accessed November 9, 2011).

[60] A. T. Robertson, The Minister’s Greek Testament, p. 118.

[61] Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation, pp. 19-21.

[62] Charlie Bing, “So Great Salvation.” BOOK REVIEWS. The Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, www.faithalone.org.

[63] John Ashbrook, Axioms of Separation, p. 27.

[64] Joseph Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 11. Note: The Fourth Edition of Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, published by T. and T. Clark in 1901, was used in preparation of this edition.

[65] H. A. Ironside, Studies on Book One of the Psalms, p. 64.

[66] C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945), p. 1228.

[67] Spiros Zodhiates, Conquering the Fear of Death in View of the Empty Tomb, pp. 775-776, italics his. Zodhiates goes on to write: “Paul does not deal with hades, which in other books of the New Testament is presented as the dwelling place to which men's disembodied spirits went. It would have been contrary to the whole trend of his argument in 1 Corinthians 15 for him to speak of hades as an enemy, for he does not deal with the period preceding the resurrection of Christ, when the spirits of believers and unbelievers went to hades. (Luke 16:19ff indicates that Abraham's bosom was the designation of the place in hades to which the spirit of righteous Lazarus went, and the place of torment in hades was where the unrighteous rich man was consigned.) After the resurrection of Christ, believers are never referred to as going to hades, but as going to be with Christ (Acts 7:59, Phil. 1:23, Heb. 12:23). And Christ is in heaven (Mark 16:19, Luke 21:54, Acts 1:9, Heb. 4:14, 1 Pet. 3:22). Death is still an enemy of the Christian, for he still experiences it; but hades is not, for the Christian does not  go there. And it is with the external destiny of the Christian that Paul is primarily concerned in 1 Corinthians 15. His subject is the resurrection of the body, not the place where the soul dwells when disembodied.” (Ibid., p. 775, italics his.)

[68] W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revel Company, 1966), pp. 187-188, ellipsis added, italics his.

[69] H. A. Ironside, Death and Afterward, p. 25.

[70] William R. Newell, The Book of Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), p. 380. Note: This book was originally published in 1935.

[71] William R. Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, p. 397.

[72] A. T. Robertson, The Christ of the Logia, p. 224. Elsewhere, Robertson writes: “One must always honor Joseph of Arimathea, though timid till now, for his courage and love in asking Pilate for the body of Jesus to be placed in his new tomb. Nicodemus and Joseph buried his body, wrapped in myrrh and aloes, with tender love.” (Robertson, Studies in the New Testament [Nashville: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1915], p. 115.)

[73] H. C. G. Moule, “CHRIST’S GRAVE AND THE CHRISTIAN’S.” From Sunday To Sunday: Short Bible Readings for the Sundays of the Year (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1904), pp. 194-198.

[74] Tom Stegall says: “by itself, it is not ‘good news’ to state that a man was buried, for that is a sad, daily occurrence in our fallen world.” (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 585.)

[75] Joe Haag, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2003), p. 243.

[76] Edward Robinson, Editor, Augustin Calmet, Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1832), p. 214.

[77] Micklem, Frederick Carl Eiselen, Edwin Lewis, and David G. Downey, Editors, The Abingdon Bible Commentary (New York: The Abingdon Press, 1929), p. 410.

[78] New Testament scholar A. T. Robertson writes: “Tomb (mnēmeion). Memorial, common in the Gospels.” (Robertson, Word Pictures, commentary on Acts 13:29.)

[79] Cited by Fausset in Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Glasgow: William Collins, Queen’s Printer, 1863), p. 307.

[80] Norman L. Geisler and Douglas E. Potter, “Christian Burial: A Case for Burial.” Christian Research Journal, bold his.

[81] H. C. G. Moule, “CHRIST’S GRAVE AND THE CHRISTIAN’S.” From Sunday To Sunday: Short Bible Readings for the Sundays of the Year (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1904), p. 194.

[82] C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (1909), p. 618, note 1.

[83] Stegall’s false dichotomy between “the Elements vs. Evidences of the Gospel” (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 555) is a “wild goose chase” because, according to the Bible, each of the four elements listed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is also an evidence of something else! In other words, all four elements (i.e. all four facts in 1 Cor. 15:3-5) are also evidences. All four statements in 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5 are proofs. Notice:

1. Christ’s death is proof of love (Jn. 15:13; Rom. 5:8),
2. Christ’s burial is proof of His sinless perfection (Isa. 53:9; 1 Pet. 2:22-23),
3. Christ’s resurrection is proof of His deity (Acts 17:31; Rom. 1:4),
4. Christ’s manifestation is proof of His bodily resurrection (Lk. 24:39; Acts 1:3).

This is important to point out because Stegall’s “Elements vs. Evidences” argument 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.” In other words, they think Christ’s burial is “only a proof” of the gospel; according to them it’s not really part of the gospel itself. But if groundless gospel advocates were consistent with their reductionist reasoning, they would have no gospel to preach because each element of the biblical gospel is also a proof or evidence of something else! For example, the resurrection of Jesus is said to be “proof” that He is God (Acts 17:16-31; Rom. 1:1-4). So is the resurrection of Christ not part of the gospel because the Bible says it’s a “proof”? Well, of course not. Such reasoning is not true in regards to Christ’s resurrection nor is it true in regards to Christ’s burial. Both are evidences yet nonetheless still elements of the gospel. And so we see that the proof is in the gospel!

[84] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2004), 4 Vols., Vol. 3, p. 549.

[85] WVCY radio sermon, Sunday, November 30, 2014.

[86] Scot McKnight, “The Gospel and Orthodoxy,” Jesus Creed blog,
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/02/the-gospel-and-orthodoxy.html (or,
http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2009/02/05/the-gospel-and-orthodoxy/), February 5, 2009, bold his, ellipsis added.

[87] John W. Reed, Donald K. Campbell, Editor, Walvoord: A Tribute (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), p. 274. Note: The late Dr. Reed was the Senior Professor Emeritus of Pastor Ministries and Director Emeritus of the D. Min. Program at DTS.

[88] Merrill C. Tenney, The Reality of the Resurrection (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1963), p. 105, cf. pp. 44, 69, 154. Note: The late Merrill C. Tenney was Dean of the Graduate School, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.