Tuesday, August 29, 2023
Saturday, August 19, 2023
A Review of the Article: "Some Thoughts on Lordship Salvation"
G. K. wrote:
Hey Jonathan! Hope you’re having a good week so far. I stumbled across this article on Bible.org: “Some Thoughts on Lordship Salvation”. In it, the author seems to side with the Lordship group in suggesting that belief also implies commitment or submission. Here’s a quote from it:
“There are, however, several observations which I would like to make. First, from a technical perspective, Deissmann in Light From the Ancient East gives several convincing quotations from the papyri to demonstrate that pisteuein eis auton [‘to believe in Him’] meant ‘surrender’ or ‘submission to.’ A slave was sold into the name of the god of the temple; i.e., to be a temple servant.17 G. Milligan, agreeing with Deissmann, asserts that this papyri usage of eis auton [‘in Him’] is also found regularly in the New Testament. “Thus, to believe on or to be baptized into the name of Jesus means to renounce self and to consider oneself the lifetime servant of Jesus.”18 Further, the phrase, eis to onoma [‘in the name’] is a legal formula in the Hellenistic world having reference to a legal transfer of ownership.19 Such evidence indicates that whatever faith is, it involves commitment. The analogy could be made to the wedding ceremony which by design establishes a new and ongoing lifetime relationship.”
I’m not sure what papyri he’s talking about, but what do you make of the notion that even in ancient secular writing, “belief” had more a meaning of surrender or submission or commitment or transfer of ownership? Of course, I know they’re trying to promote a Lordship view of faith as being more than trust. Do you know of any counter arguments to this? I know some have tried to say there’s a grammatical difference in the Greek between “believing Him” and “believing IN Him”, which I don’t find convincing, but this is not quite the same thing. These are ancient, secular examples of “eis auton” [“in Him”] actually implying commitment. Would appreciate your thoughts.
Jonathan Perreault wrote:
Hi G. K.,
Thanks for that question and the quote from that article. I do remember reading that article some years ago, and I remember that the author seemed to be promoting the Lordship view of faith. You know, I looked up those quotes you referred to, and it reminds me of that game called “telephone”. If you’re familiar with the game “telephone” then you probably see where I’m going with this. Because when I read the actual statement by Deissmann (not someone’s interpretation of his statement but his actual statement from page 323 of his book Light from the Ancient East), it didn’t say what it was being interpreted to mean or say. So for example, the statement by Dana and Mantey was mainly in reference to repentance and baptism, not believing in Christ. Yes, of course they are related, but I think we all agree that baptism is not a requirement for salvation. Furthermore, when Dana and Mantey referred to believing in Christ as submission, they didn’t actually quote any particular statement from Deissmann. Instead, Dana and Mantey just played the game “telephone” by saying: “Deissmann in Light From the Ancient East gives several convincing quotations [?] from the papri to prove that pisteuein eis auton [‘to believe in him’] meant surrender or submission to. A slave was sold into the name of the god of a temple”. (Dana-Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 105.) The problem with that particular statement is that when I looked up the actual reference in Deissmann, he wasn’t saying any of those things to define pisteuein eis auton [“to believe in Him”], but only to highlight the parallels between the ancient cultural practice of buying slaves & the New Testament truth of how we are redeemed by Christ. But who disagrees with that?! Certainly Free Grace people agree with that and affirm that! That doesn’t prove Lordship Salvation. I will provide you with the link to Deissmann’s book that I used. Maybe you can find where he talks about believing in Christ. I didn’t see it. Like I said, it reminds me of the game of “telephone”. It also might be a case of Lordship proponents wanting something to be true so badly that they will stretch certain statements or read things into statements that have been made, when in fact that’s not what the original statement said, nor even what it means in context. The link to Deissmann’s book Light from the Ancient East on the archive.org website is here. It’s striking that the same misrepresentation occurs in regards to whatever Milligan said. Notice that no one seems to have actually quoted his original statement. So again, it seems to be a case of one scholar appealing to another scholar who appeals to another scholar without actually checking out the original statement. Or they are reading something into it that is not actually there. Because concerning Milligan’s statement, M. James Sawyer quotes Dana and Mantey, but the statement by Dana and Mantey isn’t the original statement by Milligan, nor do they quote him directly. Dana and Mantey simply say, “G. Milligan agrees with Deissmann that this papyri usage of eis auton [‘into him’ or ‘in him’], is also found regularly in the New Testament.” Okay, so? Who disagrees with that? That doesn’t prove or support Lordship Salvation. Notice that Dana and Mantey (and apparently Milligan) don’t even connect it with the word “believe”! And even if they did connect it with “believe”, who would disagree? Of course we agree that the NT says “believe in Him”! So what Sawyer is saying here in his article doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny. What I’ve noticed is that the teaching of Lordship Salvation (LS) does not have New Testament support, because when you look more closely at the teachings of LS, what happens is that the supposed supporting statements or “convincing quotations” vanish like a mirage in the desert. Or to use another metaphor, the supposed support of LS collapses like a house of cards. Most people are not independent thinkers and they are not going to dig into it like you and I are doing. Most people (or at least the average reader) will just take whatever Sawyer says as gospel, and swallow it “hook, line, and sinker.” But as the Bible says, “seek and you will find” the truth!
Hi G. K.,
Thanks for that question and the quote from that article. I do remember reading that article some years ago, and I remember that the author seemed to be promoting the Lordship view of faith. You know, I looked up those quotes you referred to, and it reminds me of that game called “telephone”. If you’re familiar with the game “telephone” then you probably see where I’m going with this. Because when I read the actual statement by Deissmann (not someone’s interpretation of his statement but his actual statement from page 323 of his book Light from the Ancient East), it didn’t say what it was being interpreted to mean or say. So for example, the statement by Dana and Mantey was mainly in reference to repentance and baptism, not believing in Christ. Yes, of course they are related, but I think we all agree that baptism is not a requirement for salvation. Furthermore, when Dana and Mantey referred to believing in Christ as submission, they didn’t actually quote any particular statement from Deissmann. Instead, Dana and Mantey just played the game “telephone” by saying: “Deissmann in Light From the Ancient East gives several convincing quotations [?] from the papri to prove that pisteuein eis auton [‘to believe in him’] meant surrender or submission to. A slave was sold into the name of the god of a temple”. (Dana-Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 105.) The problem with that particular statement is that when I looked up the actual reference in Deissmann, he wasn’t saying any of those things to define pisteuein eis auton [“to believe in Him”], but only to highlight the parallels between the ancient cultural practice of buying slaves & the New Testament truth of how we are redeemed by Christ. But who disagrees with that?! Certainly Free Grace people agree with that and affirm that! That doesn’t prove Lordship Salvation. I will provide you with the link to Deissmann’s book that I used. Maybe you can find where he talks about believing in Christ. I didn’t see it. Like I said, it reminds me of the game of “telephone”. It also might be a case of Lordship proponents wanting something to be true so badly that they will stretch certain statements or read things into statements that have been made, when in fact that’s not what the original statement said, nor even what it means in context. The link to Deissmann’s book Light from the Ancient East on the archive.org website is here. It’s striking that the same misrepresentation occurs in regards to whatever Milligan said. Notice that no one seems to have actually quoted his original statement. So again, it seems to be a case of one scholar appealing to another scholar who appeals to another scholar without actually checking out the original statement. Or they are reading something into it that is not actually there. Because concerning Milligan’s statement, M. James Sawyer quotes Dana and Mantey, but the statement by Dana and Mantey isn’t the original statement by Milligan, nor do they quote him directly. Dana and Mantey simply say, “G. Milligan agrees with Deissmann that this papyri usage of eis auton [‘into him’ or ‘in him’], is also found regularly in the New Testament.” Okay, so? Who disagrees with that? That doesn’t prove or support Lordship Salvation. Notice that Dana and Mantey (and apparently Milligan) don’t even connect it with the word “believe”! And even if they did connect it with “believe”, who would disagree? Of course we agree that the NT says “believe in Him”! So what Sawyer is saying here in his article doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny. What I’ve noticed is that the teaching of Lordship Salvation (LS) does not have New Testament support, because when you look more closely at the teachings of LS, what happens is that the supposed supporting statements or “convincing quotations” vanish like a mirage in the desert. Or to use another metaphor, the supposed support of LS collapses like a house of cards. Most people are not independent thinkers and they are not going to dig into it like you and I are doing. Most people (or at least the average reader) will just take whatever Sawyer says as gospel, and swallow it “hook, line, and sinker.” But as the Bible says, “seek and you will find” the truth!
Jonathan Perreault wrote:
Hi G. K.,
My point from the previous email was when M. James Sawyer said: “Deissmann in Light From the Ancient East gives several convincing quotations from the papri to prove that pisteuein eis auton [‘to believe in him’] meant surrender or submission to.” Okay, but where’s the actual “quotations” saying that? Sawyer never provides the actual “quotations”! You see what I mean? It’s all just “he said, she said” type stuff. No actual evidence, just hearsay. Just playing “telephone”. I sure would like to see the “convincing quotations” for myself, thank you very much. Instead of just relying on Mr. Sawyer’s word for it. Anybody can say anything they want. That’s not proof. That’s just opinion. That’s all Mr. Sawyer has provided. He wants the reader to either take his word for it, or disprove him. Well, that’s backwards. Since Mr. Sawyer is the one making the argument, the burden of proof is on him to substantiate it. Beside shifting the burden of proof, Mr. Sawyer’s style of argumentation is actually the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority”: “The appeal to authority fallacy is a type of informal fallacy that occurs when someone uses the authority, reputation, or expertise of a person or a source as the sole or primary reason to support their argument, without providing any other evidence or reasoning.” Mr. Sawyer has simply appealed to Deissmann without giving any further actual evidence, nor even the actual statements by Deissmann. This is an invalid style of reasoning, a logical fallacy. And it is therefore rightly rejected.
Jonathan Perreault wrote:
Hi G. K.,
Also, just to clarify when I said in the previous email that “Mr. Sawyer has simply appealed to Deissmann without giving any further actual evidence, nor even the actual statements by Deissmann.” When I said, “without giving any further evidence,” I want to clarify that I also do not consider Mr. Sawyer’s appeal to Dana and Mantey to be any different than his appeal to Deissmann, because Dana and Mantey cite or appeal to Deissmann in the same way: without providing his actual statements. They just “appeal” to him. They just mention him and give their personal opinion(s) about what he said; but they never provide his actual statements. So again, it’s the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority”. So that’s what I was referring to when I said that Mr. Sawyer doesn’t “provide any further actual evidence”: I was referring specifically to Mr. Sawyer’s statements about the “convincing quotations” by Deissmann. Mr. Sawyer didn’t provide them, and neither did Dana and Mantey. They both just “name dropped” Deissmann, which is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Like I said, when I read Deissmann’s book for myself (I looked up the actual page number provided by Sawyer), I didn’t see Deissmann say anything about believing in Christ. That wasn’t his point nor did he even mention it, at least that I could find. And my point also was: it’s really not my job to go and try to prove Mr. Sawyer’s argument for him! He made the statement, and thus the burden of proof rests on him to prove it. And the logical fallacy of “appealing to authority” is NOT the way to do it.
Blessings,
Jonathan
Jonathan Perreault wrote:
Here’s the link to page 323 of Deissmann’s book Light from the Ancient East, the book that Sawyer appealed to trying to prove Lordship Salvation. I have searched Deissmann’s book several times now, even searching specifically for the words “believe” and “belief” using the search feature in archive.org, and still I’ve found nothing that supports what Sawyer claims. I will provide you with the same link in the event that you want to take a look at it for yourself. The link to page 323 in Deissmann’s book is here. The book is free to borrow. This particular book does not even have a time limit to borrow it that most of the books do; it’s completely free to borrow with no time limits.
It’s sad to see the proponents of Lordship Salvation using tactics such as the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority” in scholarly debate and dialog. I view it as underhanded and intellectually dishonest actually. This is what we are dealing with and what we are up against. These Calvinists and Lordship Salvationists twist the Scriptures and twist the facts. It’s unfortunate that these types of tactics pass for “scholarship” today.
G. K. wrote:
Thank you, Jonathan, for your help. I, too, have looked, and don’t see anything like they claimed. I can perhaps see how some equate belief with some kind of commitment, though, in some cases. Do you have any resources explaining how belief, in the New Testament sense, does not imply commitment or action? I’d be interested to see anything like that. My brain is thinking, “Well, it doesn’t actually SAY that belief is commitment or action, but it doesn’t DENY it, either...” [Editor’s note: But this is an argument from silence.] Would love some arguments against. And feel free to repost my questions, etc.
Hi G. K.,
My point from the previous email was when M. James Sawyer said: “Deissmann in Light From the Ancient East gives several convincing quotations from the papri to prove that pisteuein eis auton [‘to believe in him’] meant surrender or submission to.” Okay, but where’s the actual “quotations” saying that? Sawyer never provides the actual “quotations”! You see what I mean? It’s all just “he said, she said” type stuff. No actual evidence, just hearsay. Just playing “telephone”. I sure would like to see the “convincing quotations” for myself, thank you very much. Instead of just relying on Mr. Sawyer’s word for it. Anybody can say anything they want. That’s not proof. That’s just opinion. That’s all Mr. Sawyer has provided. He wants the reader to either take his word for it, or disprove him. Well, that’s backwards. Since Mr. Sawyer is the one making the argument, the burden of proof is on him to substantiate it. Beside shifting the burden of proof, Mr. Sawyer’s style of argumentation is actually the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority”: “The appeal to authority fallacy is a type of informal fallacy that occurs when someone uses the authority, reputation, or expertise of a person or a source as the sole or primary reason to support their argument, without providing any other evidence or reasoning.” Mr. Sawyer has simply appealed to Deissmann without giving any further actual evidence, nor even the actual statements by Deissmann. This is an invalid style of reasoning, a logical fallacy. And it is therefore rightly rejected.
Jonathan Perreault wrote:
Hi G. K.,
Also, just to clarify when I said in the previous email that “Mr. Sawyer has simply appealed to Deissmann without giving any further actual evidence, nor even the actual statements by Deissmann.” When I said, “without giving any further evidence,” I want to clarify that I also do not consider Mr. Sawyer’s appeal to Dana and Mantey to be any different than his appeal to Deissmann, because Dana and Mantey cite or appeal to Deissmann in the same way: without providing his actual statements. They just “appeal” to him. They just mention him and give their personal opinion(s) about what he said; but they never provide his actual statements. So again, it’s the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority”. So that’s what I was referring to when I said that Mr. Sawyer doesn’t “provide any further actual evidence”: I was referring specifically to Mr. Sawyer’s statements about the “convincing quotations” by Deissmann. Mr. Sawyer didn’t provide them, and neither did Dana and Mantey. They both just “name dropped” Deissmann, which is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Like I said, when I read Deissmann’s book for myself (I looked up the actual page number provided by Sawyer), I didn’t see Deissmann say anything about believing in Christ. That wasn’t his point nor did he even mention it, at least that I could find. And my point also was: it’s really not my job to go and try to prove Mr. Sawyer’s argument for him! He made the statement, and thus the burden of proof rests on him to prove it. And the logical fallacy of “appealing to authority” is NOT the way to do it.
Blessings,
Jonathan
Jonathan Perreault wrote:
Here’s the link to page 323 of Deissmann’s book Light from the Ancient East, the book that Sawyer appealed to trying to prove Lordship Salvation. I have searched Deissmann’s book several times now, even searching specifically for the words “believe” and “belief” using the search feature in archive.org, and still I’ve found nothing that supports what Sawyer claims. I will provide you with the same link in the event that you want to take a look at it for yourself. The link to page 323 in Deissmann’s book is here. The book is free to borrow. This particular book does not even have a time limit to borrow it that most of the books do; it’s completely free to borrow with no time limits.
It’s sad to see the proponents of Lordship Salvation using tactics such as the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority” in scholarly debate and dialog. I view it as underhanded and intellectually dishonest actually. This is what we are dealing with and what we are up against. These Calvinists and Lordship Salvationists twist the Scriptures and twist the facts. It’s unfortunate that these types of tactics pass for “scholarship” today.
G. K. wrote:
Thank you, Jonathan, for your help. I, too, have looked, and don’t see anything like they claimed. I can perhaps see how some equate belief with some kind of commitment, though, in some cases. Do you have any resources explaining how belief, in the New Testament sense, does not imply commitment or action? I’d be interested to see anything like that. My brain is thinking, “Well, it doesn’t actually SAY that belief is commitment or action, but it doesn’t DENY it, either...” [Editor’s note: But this is an argument from silence.] Would love some arguments against. And feel free to repost my questions, etc.
Jonathan Perreault wrote:
Hi G. K.,
You might want to take a look at Dr. Charlie Bing’s book titled Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response. See especially chapter 5, “Discipleship and Salvation” (pp. 122-163). You might also want to email Dr. Bing and ask him if he can recommend any other resources in regards to your question. As far as some other ideas, you can try searching my Free Grace Library. I would suggest searching the books and articles under the heading “Lordship Salvation”. You can click on the individual books and articles and search them for whatever terms you are looking for, such as the word “commitment” for example. Thanks for giving me permission to anonymously post your questions. God Bless
G. K. wrote:
Thank you, Jonathan, I appreciate that. I am reading through Bing’s Lordship Salvation book as we speak. I started on chapter 4, though, Faith, and it’s almost eerie. It’s answering EVERY one of the questions I’ve had in the last 24 hours one-by-one, almost in the exact order they popped into my head! Between that and a bit of my friend Fruchtenbaum’s commentary, I’m feeling these doubts drop like flies. Is that coincidence, or God’s work? Hmm😉 [Editor’s note: That’s what’s called a God-incident!]
G. K. wrote:
Thank you, Jonathan, I appreciate that. I am reading through Bing’s Lordship Salvation book as we speak. I started on chapter 4, though, Faith, and it’s almost eerie. It’s answering EVERY one of the questions I’ve had in the last 24 hours one-by-one, almost in the exact order they popped into my head! Between that and a bit of my friend Fruchtenbaum’s commentary, I’m feeling these doubts drop like flies. Is that coincidence, or God’s work? Hmm😉 [Editor’s note: That’s what’s called a God-incident!]
Saturday, August 12, 2023
Getting the Gospel Right, Pt. 5
In Distinction to Tom Stegalland the Groundless Gospel
* * *
Free Grace theologian William R. Newell has stated 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 everyone who rests in it, who believes!"[1] Unfortunately, Newell's fervor for the first things of the gospel is not shared by some in the Free Grace movement of today. For example, a few years ago one fundamentalist Free Grace blogger wrote to me saying that he didn't want his blog turned into a sounding board or battle ground over Christ's burial and resurrection appearances because he felt there were "bigger fish to fry". Maybe this blogger took a cue from Tom Stegall who several years ago told his congregation that it was merely a "slight change"[2] to remove Christ's burial from the church's doctrinal statement on the "SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION".[3] Others have argued that this new teaching is merely "a crack in the window" of orthodoxy, as if this provides any reassurance or justification for the new position. In contrast to the new groundless gospel, when the apostle Paul declared the gospel tradition he received, he included Christ's burial in the things "of first importance" (1 Cor. 15:3ff).[4] In a gospel creed where words are used sparingly, where whole areas of doctrine are either assumed or passed over in silence, where the whole of Christ's teaching ministry and all of His miracles are not even mentioned, Paul says that Christ "was buried" (1 Cor. 15:4).[5]
There are grave dangers in saying that Christ's burial is not part of the gospel and therefore not "of first importance" (1 Cor. 15:3).[6] To some well-meaning but misguided Christians it might seem like a little thing, a "slight change," or merely "a crack in the window" of orthodoxy to remove Christ's burial from the gospel of salvation. (The implication is that a little error or a slight change to the gospel is nothing to worry about!) But the apostle Paul emphasizes that even "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" (1 Cor. 5:6; cf. Gal. 5:9). Leaven is anything that lightens, softens, or modifies the finished product. For example, in bread, leaven is a substance that produces air pockets or holes in the dough. Paul uses the metaphor of leaven to refer to impurity and that which is opposed to "truth" (1 Cor. 5:8). Whether the issue is moral or doctrinal impurity the principle is the same: "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" (1 Cor. 5:6). Tragically, this leaven has crept into the new groundless gospel. Tom Stegall has said: "His being buried was not a work which accomplished our eternal redemption, and it is therefore not absolutely essential for someone to know about it and believe it in order to go to heaven".[7] Similarly, Stegall indicates that "a person is saved" even though he "is vociferously denying the truth of 1 Corinthians 15:4 that Christ's resurrection occurred on 'the third day.'"[8] Greg Schliesmann, a once vocal member of Stegall's congregation, further clarifies the extreme nature of the groundless gospel position when he states: "In terms of salvation, there is no distinction between not believing and denying".[9] Some years ago Robert Lightner wrote a book about those who die before the age of accountability. The book is titled "Heaven for Those Who Can't Believe". To borrow the phrase, Stegall's new teaching could be labeled: "Heaven for Those Who Don't Believe". No wonder Bob Wilkin has said that "there are lots of holes" in the groundless gospel![10]
What are some of the holes, air pockets, and leaven in the groundless gospel? The holes in the groundless gospel are numerous. It is missing vital elements such as: there is no mention of "the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3, 4), no mention of the fact that Christ "was buried" (1 Cor. 15:4), no mention of "the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4), and no mention of the fact that Christ "was seen" (1 Cor. 15:5). Sadly, Stegall believes that these gospel truths are something like "excess baggage"[11] in evangelism. In fact, Stegall actually calls them "extra details"![12] He teaches that "they are not technically part of the gospel or the contents of saving faith"[13] but only "growth-truth for every child of God."[14] This is the leaven of the groundless gospel. It proclaims a new non-buried and never-seen savior. This is "another Jesus" and "a different gospel" from the one Paul preached and the Corinthians accepted (2 Cor. 11:4; cf. 1 Cor. 15:1ff). This gutted gospel can be compared to the processed foods and white breads of the modern American diet. These foods have been so stripped of essential nutrients that they must be artificially "enriched" and "fortified" with synthetic vitamins, minerals, and preservatives. No wonder people say: "The whiter the bread, the quicker you're dead!" In stripping the gospel of Christ's burial and other vital truths, Stegall has ironically "become like a person who is initially intent on becoming healthier through diet and exercise but somewhere along the line becomes manically obsessed with getting leaner. Initially, he does become healthier as he burns off unnecessary excess fat, but then by obsessive diet and exercise he actually becomes unhealthy as his body begins to metabolize muscle instead of fat...[he has] gone to an unhealthy extreme, and [he is] consuming muscle off the bone—the precious contents of the Gospel itself, namely our Lord's [burial, resurrection on the third day, resurrection appearances, and the fact that all this happened "according to the Scriptures"]...This is the terrible tragedy of the new [groundless] gospel."[15]
Christians must be on their guard against the leaven of the new groundless gospel which proclaims a modified message lacking vital truths "of first importance". We must continue to "hold fast the word" which Paul preached (1 Cor. 15:2), and include the things "of first importance" in the gospel (1 Cor. 15:3-5). Commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5, Bible scholar Gordon Fee states: "Among all the things he [Paul] proclaimed and taught while he was with them, these are the matters of 'first importance.' Here is the 'bare bones' content of the gospel that saves....In it's present form it has four lines, each introduced with a hoti ('that'), thus emphasizing the content of each line....Thus: 1) that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; 2) and that he was buried; 3) and that he was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures; 4) and that he was seen by Cephas [and] the Twelve."[16] S. Lewis Johnson concurs saying, "First of all (lit., among the first things) refers to importance, not time. The substance of Paul's message is contained in the four that's following received, and it includes Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and appearances. These things make up the Gospel."[17] Similarly, and in conclusion, the words of F. F. Bruce are appropriate: "The things of first importance are four in number: (a) Christ died, (b) he was buried, (c) he was raised, (d) he appeared in resurrection to many. Whatever differences there might be in primitive Christian faith and preaching, there was evidently unanimity on these fundamental data."[18]
ENDNOTES:
[1] William R. Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, p. 19. Newell was a gospel man, a great Bible expositor of the past century and former superintendent of the Moody Bible Institute. Newell was a strong proponent of the first things of the gospel, as evidenced by the following statements from his classic evangelical commentary on the book of Romans: "The gospel is all about Christ. Apart from Him, there is no news from heaven but that of coming woe! Read that passage in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5: 'I make known unto you the gospel which I preached unto you: that Christ died, Christ was buried; Christ hath been raised; Christ was seen.' It is all about the Son of God!" (Ibid., p. 6.) "[Romans 1] Verse 16: 'For I am not ashamed of the gospel...For it is the power of God unto salvation'—The second 'For' gives the reason for Paul's boldness: this good news concerning Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and appearing, '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." (Ibid., p. 19.) "Paul's preaching was not, as is so much today, general disquisition on some subject, but definite statements about the crucified One, as he himself so insistently tells us in 1 Corinthians 15.3-5." (Ibid., p. 20.) "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." (Ibid., p. 21.) "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 principles of faith. We simply hear and believe: and, as we shall find, God reckons us righteous; our guilt having been put away by the blood of Christ forever, and we ourselves declared to be the righteousness of God in Him!" (Ibid., p. 24.)
Referring to Romans Verse-By-Verse, Stegall states that Newell's book is a "fine commentary on Romans" (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 561, note 61). But one is baffled at how Stegall can describe Newell's book in such glowing terms in light of the two men's divergent positions on the gospel. While Newell clearly includes Christ's burial and appearances in the gospel (see 1 Corinthians 15:3-5), Stegall excludes them from the gospel. To be consistent, Stegall should be warning readers about the tragedy of Newell's glorious gospel! Stegall admits that "Newell in his fine commentary on Romans (William R. Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994]) written from a grace perspective states variously that the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 includes Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and appearances (Ibid., pp. 5-6, 21) but that the great facts of the gospel concern Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (Ibid., pp. 6, 19-20, 49)." (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 561, note 61.) This written admission by Stegall is interesting because in personal dialogue with me he has seemed reluctant to admit that Newell and I hold to the same position on the gospel.
But notice that there are several inaccuracies in Stegall's statement. First, he inaccurately references several pages in Newell's book. Stegall claims that on pages 6, 19, 20, and 49 of Romans Verse-By-Verse that Newell limits the "great facts of the gospel" (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 561, note 61) to only Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. However, after looking up these pages in Newell's commentary, the only place he makes any reference to the "great facts...of the gospel" is on page 6, when he states: "These great facts concerning Christ's death, burial, and resurrection are the beginning of the gospel; as Paul says: 'I delivered unto you (these) first of all." (Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, p. 6.) Besides the inaccurate page references, Stegall also inaccurately summarizes Newell's statement about the great facts of the gospel (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 561, note 61). On page 6 of Romans Verse-By-Verse Newell is specifically talking about "the great facts concerning...the beginning of the gospel," he's not talking about the gospel in it's entirety or completeness as Stegall would have us believe! Admittedly Stegall doesn't use the word "entirety" or "completeness" but that is the implication since he doesn't specify otherwise. There is one last inaccuracy to be noted in Stegall's statement. Notice the false dichotomy he attempts to create in Newell's position by pitting the four facts of the gospel against the three great facts of the gospel (which in reality are the three great facts concerning "the beginning of the gospel"). Stegall creates this false dichotomy using the contrasting conjunction "but" (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 561, note 61). However, in actuality there is no such contrast in Newell's position because instead of limiting the great facts of the gospel, he's simply pointing out that the great facts of the gospel begin with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. The two truths that Stegall seeks to contrast are not contradictory (much less mutually exclusive), but are instead complimentary and parallel. Correcting these three inaccuracies in Stegall's statement, notice how it should read and how the meaning is changed: "Even Newell in his fine commentary on Romans (William R. Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994]) written from a grace perspective states variously that the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 includes Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and appearances (ibid., 5-6, 21) but [and] that the great facts ['concerning...the beginning'] of the gospel concern Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (ibid., 6, 19-20, 49)." (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 561, note 61, strike-throughs and brackets added.) When the inaccuracies in Stegall's statement are corrected it becomes clear that if there are any distinctions to be noted in Newell's position it is not between some supposed less important facts of the gospel and the "great facts" (Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, p. 6) of the gospel, but instead between the great facts at "the beginning of the gospel" (Ibid., p. 6) and "the whole story of the gospel: that Jesus was the Christ, that he had come, died for sin, been buried, been raised, and been seen by many witnesses after His resurrection" (Ibid., p. 397). Thus, when Newell talks about "the beginning of the gospel" (Ibid., p. 6), he is drawing attention to the chronology of the great facts of the gospel story. Newell affirms such a chronology when he writes: "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." (Ibid., p. 24.)
There is one last point that needs to be made in this whole discussion. Even if Newell hypothetically does make a contrast between the less important facts of the gospel and the "great facts" of the gospel, he still includes all four facts in the gospel. This goes back to what I said in my article "Getting the Gospel Right, Pt. 1" (the title being a parody of Hixson's Getting the Gospel Wrong), where I pointed out that even if two of the four facts of the gospel are to be understood in a subordinate sense they are still divinely included in the content of the gospel. This exegetical point continues to be problematic for proponents of the groundless gospel. So however Stegall tries to slice it, he must concede that Newell does indeed include all four facts (i.e. Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and appearances) in the gospel (see Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, pp. 5, 6, 19, 20, 21, 24, 397) and in the contents of saving faith (Ibid., pp. 19, 20, 24, 397). Stegall must also concede something about his own beliefs, namely that his groundless gospel is at odds with Newell's understanding of the gospel.
[2] Tom Stegall, "Proposed Change" to the "SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION" section of the W.O.G.B.C. Doctrinal Statement, Word of Grace Bible Church handout (c. 2007), emphasis his.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Tom Stegall writes: "When Paul states that the gospel that he received and delivered to the Corinthians is 'first of all,' he means that the gospel is in first place when it comes to importance. And this gospel message that was to be first in importance is defined specifically as the message 'that Christ died for our sins...and that He rose again.'" (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 512, ellipsis his.) It is telling that Stegall must edit Paul's declaration of the gospel by adding ellipsis after the words "Christ died for our sins" (thus removing the mention of "the Scriptures" and the fact that Christ "was buried") and by adding an artificial period after the words "He rose again" (thus removing the mention of the "third day," "the Scriptures," and the fact that Christ "was seen"). Notice that Stegall even omits the mention of "the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3, 4) from his new, mini-gospel! Tragically, the groundless gospel is a partial gospel lacking vital truths "of first importance" (1 Cor. 15:3). Ironically, Dennis Rokser has said: "[Zane] Hodges...undermines the 'core essentials' of the Gospel declared in this passage as NOT BEING OF FIRST IMPORTANCE when it comes to that which 'must be believed in order to be eternally saved.' What a strange twist!" (Rokser, "A CRITIQUE OF ZANE HODGES' ARTICLE – 'THE HYDRA'S OTHER HEAD: THEOLOGICAL LEGALISM,'" The Grace Family Journal [Special Edition 2008].) What a strange twist indeed that groundless gospel advocates also undermine the core essentials of the gospel!
[5] Adapted from Ray Pritchard's article "God's Scapegoat: 'Buried'," https://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/gods-scapegoat-buried/ (March 28, 2004).
[6] As someone has correctly said: "So dangerous a thing it is to meddle ever so slightly with the words of—GOD." (Ivan Panin, Editor, The New Testament From The Greek Text [Toronto: The Book Society of Canada, 1979], p. xiii, italics and caps his.)
[7] Tom Stegall, "Proposed Change" to the "SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION," Word of Grace Bible Church handout (circa 2007). Note: Stegall left Word of Grace Bible Church in 2011; he is now on staff at Duluth Bible Church in Duluth, Minnesota.
[8] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 563, italics his.
[9] Greg Schliesmann, see his comment under the post: "Zane Hodges, 'Legalism is not a very nice word.' (Part 1)," http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2008/10/zane-hodges-legalism-is-not-very-nice.html (accessed November 3, 2008).
[10] Bob Wilkin, "A REVIEW OF J. B. HIXSON'S GETTING THE GOSPEL WRONG: THE EVANGELICAL CRISIS NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 2008): p. 24. Under the heading "EXEGESIS TAKES A BACK SEAT TO TRADITION," Wilkin states: "Hixson's core essentials bring to mind a scene from The Fiddler on the Roof in which Tevye is singing about tradition. To an outside observer like me, it looks like Hixson is relying on some tradition to tell him what the essentials are. Then he searches the NT to find passages that talk about those essentials. While he would surely love to find one passage that lists all the essentials from his tradition, since he can't find such a passage, he makes do with a menagerie of texts which he says present the 'core essentials.' Hixson has found these [his] five essentials hither and yon in the NT and then stitched them together into a salvific quilt. But there are lots of holes in the [groundless gospel] quilt!" (Wilkin, ibid.) One of these "holes" involves the issue of Christ's burial in the gospel and in the content of saving faith. Wilkin writes: "Or, what if the burial of Jesus is part of the Biblical gospel as Paul says it is in 1 Cor 15:4? When discussing 1 Cor 15:1-8, Hixson indicates that the burial of Jesus is not part of the Biblical gospel (pp. 80-81)....Hixson does not explicitly say this. However, he says, 'Paul does not intend to include all nine of these facts [in 1 Cor 15:1-8] as part of the precise content of saving faith' (p. 80). Since one of those nine facts is Jesus' burial, and since [Hixson] never lists it as an essential truth, it's clear he doesn't consider it part of what he calls the Biblical gospel....But if Jesus' burial is part of the Biblical gospel, then Hixson's message is an altered gospel and is thus impotent to save (cf. pp. 43, 80-81)." (Wilkin, ibid., p. 18, emphasis his.)
[11] Zane Hodges, "How To Lead People To Christ, PART 2: Our Invitation To Respond," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 14 (Spring 2001): p. 17.
[12] Tom Stegall, THE TRAGEDY OF THE CROSSLESS GOSPEL Pt. 9," The Grace Family Journal (Special Edition 2008): p. 21.
[13] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 589.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Tom Stegall, "THE TRAGEDY OF THE CROSSLESS GOSPEL Pt. 1," The Grace Family Journal (Spring 2007): p. 9.
[16] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 722-723, last brackets his, ellipsis added.
[17] S. Lewis Johnson, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1255.
[18] F. F. Bruce, 1 And 2 Corinthians (London: Oliphants, 1976), p. 138, bold and italics his; cf. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1982), p. 88, where he discusses 1 Corinthians 15:3 "with regard to the saving events of Christ's death, burial, resurrection and subsequent appearances".
Sunday, August 6, 2023
Biblical Repentance: What Is It?
I recently had a conversation about biblical repentance with an inquirer, who gave me permission to re-post his questions. It is my hope that the following Q & A will bless others who may have the same or similar questions about repentance. The questioner’s name has been changed for privacy.
* * *
Thu, Aug 3, 4:31 PM
G. K. wrote:
How are you, Jonathan?
How are you, Jonathan?
Had another question or two for you today. To what extent must a person believe and understand that they are a sinner before they can be saved? Must one have a gut-wrenching guilt and pain, whilst tearing their clothing and throwing ash in their face? Or can one simply acknowledge it, perhaps without much emotion involved at all? Must one verbally confess that they are lost, or just understand it to be so? I’m having trouble describing what I mean here. For example, when I was a kid and first believed I was saved, I do not remember feeling torn to the core over my sin or lostness. I merely accepted it as fact. I don’t remember specifically thinking, “Oh, crap, I really am lost! I really am a wicked sinner!” But if I believed in Jesus as my Savior from sin, then logically, I had to know that I was a sinner, and lost, even if not in those exact words. I knew I was not right with God, anyway. I knew that sin sent people to hell, and that it needed to be forgiven. Why else would one accept Jesus as Savior unless they realize they need one (a Savior)? Again, I can’t quite articulate what I’m getting at. I guess I’m asking whether my childlike understanding of my sin and guilt was sufficient. I knew that my sins were bad, though perhaps not HOW bad. I knew they needed forgiveness. I knew that if my sins were not forgiven, I could not go to heaven. But how well can a child really understand the depth and seriousness of their sin? How deeply can they feel torn over it?
Also today, I’m having some struggles with the idea of repentance as merely a change of mind. Looking into the meaning of Hebrew “nacham” there does seem to be an element of regret or sorrow. And can we really suggest that while the NT might not specifically say “repentance from sin” that it is not nevertheless implied? How are we able to so pick and choose which instances of repent refer to temporal judgment and which refer to eternal judgment? Why does even Bob Wilkin feel that repentance does refer to turning from sins? He said something along the lines of 44 of 55 examples of repentance in the NT being most definitely a turning from sin. My head is flooded with confusion over this. There’s a nagging voice in the back of my mind saying that the FG understanding of repentance is just wishful thinking, or “explaining away the obvious”. And obviously it matters, as I have not turned from all of my sin. Help!
Also today, I’m having some struggles with the idea of repentance as merely a change of mind. Looking into the meaning of Hebrew “nacham” there does seem to be an element of regret or sorrow. And can we really suggest that while the NT might not specifically say “repentance from sin” that it is not nevertheless implied? How are we able to so pick and choose which instances of repent refer to temporal judgment and which refer to eternal judgment? Why does even Bob Wilkin feel that repentance does refer to turning from sins? He said something along the lines of 44 of 55 examples of repentance in the NT being most definitely a turning from sin. My head is flooded with confusion over this. There’s a nagging voice in the back of my mind saying that the FG understanding of repentance is just wishful thinking, or “explaining away the obvious”. And obviously it matters, as I have not turned from all of my sin. Help!
Fri, Aug 4, 9:33 AM
Jonathan wrote:
Hi __________,
I’m doing well, thanks! I hope I can offer you some help and encouragement here in regards to your questions. You asked: "Must one have a gut-wrenching guilt and pain, whilst tearing their clothing and throwing ash in their face?" No, I wouldn't say that. I like what Roy Aldrich has to say about the emotions that may be involved in salvation. Aldrich writes: "The Greek word metanoia means a change of mind. [...] Because repentance is a change of mind it should not be concluded that the experience of salvation will be devoid of emotion. Psychologists say that every important decision of the mind is accompanied by emotion. Surely there will be emotion with the great change of mind that takes place when a sinner first believes in Christ. However, this emotional experience will vary with circumstances and temperament and it should not be demanded either as a condition or proof of salvation." (Roy Aldrich, "Some Simple Difficulties of Salvation." Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 111, No. 442 [April 1954], pp. 158-160.) Related to this you also asked: "Or can one simply acknowledge it, perhaps without much emotion involved at all?" Yes, I would say that is entirely possible. You also asked: "Must one verbally confess that they are lost, or just understand it to be so?" A person does not have to verbally confess anything to be saved, otherwise how could mutes be saved? Furthermore, verbally confessing something is a human work, which if a requirement would make salvation by works or by something we physically do, instead of by simple faith.
In regards to your questions about repentance, I think it helps to realize (especially in the Old Testament), that God repents! For me, that's huge! Because if the core meaning of repentance means "turn from sin" (as Wilkin advocates), then that would make God a sinner! I like the statement by Dr. Scofield on repentance in the Old Testament. Scofield writes: "Repentance (O.T.), Summary: In the O.T., repentance is the English word used to translate the Heb. nacham, to be 'eased' or 'comforted.' It is used of both God and man. Notwithstanding the literal meaning of nacham, it is evident, from a study of all the passages, that the sacred writers use it in the sense of metanoia in the N.T.—a change of mind. See Mt. 3. 2; Acts 17. 30, note. As in the N.T., such change of mind is often accompanied by contrition and self-judgment. When applied to God the word is used phenomenally according to O.T. custom. God seems to change His mind. The phenomena are such as, in the case of a man, would indicate a change of mind." (C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible [New York: Oxford University Press, 1917], p. 972, note on Zechariah 8:14.) For more information you may want to read some more in-depth articles that I've written on biblical repentance:
In regards to your questions about repentance, I think it helps to realize (especially in the Old Testament), that God repents! For me, that's huge! Because if the core meaning of repentance means "turn from sin" (as Wilkin advocates), then that would make God a sinner! I like the statement by Dr. Scofield on repentance in the Old Testament. Scofield writes: "Repentance (O.T.), Summary: In the O.T., repentance is the English word used to translate the Heb. nacham, to be 'eased' or 'comforted.' It is used of both God and man. Notwithstanding the literal meaning of nacham, it is evident, from a study of all the passages, that the sacred writers use it in the sense of metanoia in the N.T.—a change of mind. See Mt. 3. 2; Acts 17. 30, note. As in the N.T., such change of mind is often accompanied by contrition and self-judgment. When applied to God the word is used phenomenally according to O.T. custom. God seems to change His mind. The phenomena are such as, in the case of a man, would indicate a change of mind." (C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible [New York: Oxford University Press, 1917], p. 972, note on Zechariah 8:14.) For more information you may want to read some more in-depth articles that I've written on biblical repentance:
• The Scofield Reference Bible on Repentance (May 24, 2021)
• Is Repentance Sorrow for Sin? 10 Reasons Why It Is Not (Feb 18, 2023).
I talk about the Hebrew word nacham in some detail in the blog post titled "7 Ways Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance". I hope this helps! God Bless
Fri, Aug 4, 9:56 AM
Jonathan wrote:
Hi __________,
In my last email, I forgot to answer some of your other questions about repentance. So you asked about Wilkin's view of repentance. Yes, I do agree that in many biblical contexts, the idea of "repentance from sin" is implied. But again, it depends on the context. Apparently Wilkin has counted them up and there are about 50 or so contexts in which the repentance is about turning from sins. I don't have a problem with that, necessarily. That could very well be the case. But it doesn't redefine repentance or disprove my point that repentance is a change of mind. All it shows is that in those 50 passages, the context of the change of mind is about turning from sin. So for example, in Revelation chapters 2-3 God tells the various church assemblies to "Repent!" The context shows that it is in regards to whatever sin Jesus has mentioned. Wilkin wants to take those specific contexts and apply it to EVERY context whenever the word repent is mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Anybody see a problem with that? That would be like me saying that the word "save" (Greek sōzō) always means salvation from hell wherever we happen to find it, regardless of the context. That's true in SOME contexts, but not every context. You see the difference? Sometimes in the NT, the word "save" simply means "to be made whole", or "to heal", "to deliver from sickness" (e.g. James 5:15). It just depends on the context. What the salvation or deliverance is from depends on the context. If we said that the word "save" always means salvation from hell because 50 times in the NT it is found in that context, that obviously doesn't mean that sōzō means that in every other instance. You see? But that's essentially what Wilkin is saying in regards to the word "repent". He's basically saying that since repent is seen to refer to "turning from sin" in 50 passages, therefore that is the meaning of the word in every context. So he's redefining the word "repentance" based on a limited sample of evidence. Besides being a logical fallacy, that is just bad hermeneutics. It should be obvious that he is reading his theological bias into the biblical text (eisegesis), not deriving the meaning out of the text (exegesis). So Wilkin has it backwards. Wilkin is twisting the Scriptures and thus his view is rightly rejected.
Thu, Aug 3, 5:41 PM
Thu, Aug 3, 5:41 PM
G. K. wrote:
Does a person have to be willing to give up their sin in order to be saved? I heard someone say that you can’t be saved if you’re still trying to hold on to your sin. In other words, you can’t ask God to save you while still want to cling to your sin.
Does a person have to be willing to give up their sin in order to be saved? I heard someone say that you can’t be saved if you’re still trying to hold on to your sin. In other words, you can’t ask God to save you while still want to cling to your sin.
Fri, Aug 4, 12:08 AM
G. K. wrote:
Jonathan, I am not doing well. Please pray for me. I can't escape the idea that repentance from sin really is necessary for salvation, and that I will never attain it because I just won't let go of my sin. Sure, I'm shaken and disturbed by the thought of punishment, but then I harden my hard and refuse to let go. I fear I'll reach a point where I can't repent, and will perish. Like the saying, if you won't let go of your sin, then God says "Your will be done" and you will take it to hell with you.
If it really is just a change of mind, then what about Revelation 9:21 — it mentions those who would not repent of their wickedness. How am I any different?
And in Acts, when Paul preaches to Felix and Drusilla, he preaches about self-control, not the gospel. He didn't tell them they only needed to believe. He brought up sin and judgment, and Felix shuddered and asked Paul to leave. I fear that's all I am — a Felix. I don't want to be punished for my sins, but I am not willing to give them up. And so I will take them to hell with me. Maybe I can't break free from sin because I'm just not willing, and that because I'm not saved. Are people just telling me what to hear so that I won't worry? These two passages really seem to suggest that repentance is necessary, but since people don't want to repent, they won't be saved. Again, Paul could have told Felix and Drusilla (who were living in adultery) that all they had to do was believe, and they'd be saved, but he didn't. Have I missed a step? Have I, like Felix, just never wanted to hear about my sin and guilt, and just wanted to fast-forward to the mercy part? Could it be that I've just never acknowledged that I am a lost sinner, worthy of death? Maybe I tried to skip that part in my mind, and so I can't be saved because I won't really LOOK at my guilt. I just want to skip it and think everything will be ok. But if I won't look at it, acknowledge it, I can't be saved.
I read an article by a Micah Colbert. He says in the first section, "Can I Keep My Sin and Go to Heaven?" A while back, I was witnessing to a group of college-age guys. They were familiar with Christianity, but they didn’t know the gospel. As I spoke of sin and judgment, one of the guys began squirming nervously. I could tell that he was troubled by what I was saying. Finally, he interrupted me with a question I won’t soon forget: “Hey man, I’m gonna be honest with you,” he blurted out, “I’m living with my girlfriend right now and I don’t want to stop. I know it’s wrong, but I don’t want to give it up… But I don’t want to go to hell either. Can I keep my sin and go to heaven?” At that point, the rest of the guys suddenly became interested in the conversation. What was I going to say in response to their friend’s dilemma? What would you say?
Sadly, many Christians would argue that he can as long as he simply trusts in Jesus: “That sin isn’t the issue,” they would argue. “You can deal with it later. Good works, after all, can’t save you. What really matters is whether or not you’re trusting in Jesus for eternal life. If you believe in Jesus, He will save you!” Thus, another sin-loving, non-repentant soul would be “led to the Lord” and given a false hope of salvation."
I feel like that might as well have been written about me. I’m trying to get to step B without first dealing with step A. I am not willing to give up my sin, to repent, like Felix, like those in Revelation 9:21. I am not willing to hear the bad news before the good news. And if I’m not saved, but everyone tells me I am, and I’m just “struggling” then I will never be saved because I can’t be honest with myself. It just doesn’t make sense that a person could be saved without turning from sin, otherwise why aren’t those in Revelation saved? Why weren’t Felix and Drusilla saved?
I’m a hopeless mess.
Fri, Aug 4, 12:27 AM
Jonathan, I am not doing well. Please pray for me. I can't escape the idea that repentance from sin really is necessary for salvation, and that I will never attain it because I just won't let go of my sin. Sure, I'm shaken and disturbed by the thought of punishment, but then I harden my hard and refuse to let go. I fear I'll reach a point where I can't repent, and will perish. Like the saying, if you won't let go of your sin, then God says "Your will be done" and you will take it to hell with you.
If it really is just a change of mind, then what about Revelation 9:21 — it mentions those who would not repent of their wickedness. How am I any different?
And in Acts, when Paul preaches to Felix and Drusilla, he preaches about self-control, not the gospel. He didn't tell them they only needed to believe. He brought up sin and judgment, and Felix shuddered and asked Paul to leave. I fear that's all I am — a Felix. I don't want to be punished for my sins, but I am not willing to give them up. And so I will take them to hell with me. Maybe I can't break free from sin because I'm just not willing, and that because I'm not saved. Are people just telling me what to hear so that I won't worry? These two passages really seem to suggest that repentance is necessary, but since people don't want to repent, they won't be saved. Again, Paul could have told Felix and Drusilla (who were living in adultery) that all they had to do was believe, and they'd be saved, but he didn't. Have I missed a step? Have I, like Felix, just never wanted to hear about my sin and guilt, and just wanted to fast-forward to the mercy part? Could it be that I've just never acknowledged that I am a lost sinner, worthy of death? Maybe I tried to skip that part in my mind, and so I can't be saved because I won't really LOOK at my guilt. I just want to skip it and think everything will be ok. But if I won't look at it, acknowledge it, I can't be saved.
I read an article by a Micah Colbert. He says in the first section, "Can I Keep My Sin and Go to Heaven?" A while back, I was witnessing to a group of college-age guys. They were familiar with Christianity, but they didn’t know the gospel. As I spoke of sin and judgment, one of the guys began squirming nervously. I could tell that he was troubled by what I was saying. Finally, he interrupted me with a question I won’t soon forget: “Hey man, I’m gonna be honest with you,” he blurted out, “I’m living with my girlfriend right now and I don’t want to stop. I know it’s wrong, but I don’t want to give it up… But I don’t want to go to hell either. Can I keep my sin and go to heaven?” At that point, the rest of the guys suddenly became interested in the conversation. What was I going to say in response to their friend’s dilemma? What would you say?
Sadly, many Christians would argue that he can as long as he simply trusts in Jesus: “That sin isn’t the issue,” they would argue. “You can deal with it later. Good works, after all, can’t save you. What really matters is whether or not you’re trusting in Jesus for eternal life. If you believe in Jesus, He will save you!” Thus, another sin-loving, non-repentant soul would be “led to the Lord” and given a false hope of salvation."
I feel like that might as well have been written about me. I’m trying to get to step B without first dealing with step A. I am not willing to give up my sin, to repent, like Felix, like those in Revelation 9:21. I am not willing to hear the bad news before the good news. And if I’m not saved, but everyone tells me I am, and I’m just “struggling” then I will never be saved because I can’t be honest with myself. It just doesn’t make sense that a person could be saved without turning from sin, otherwise why aren’t those in Revelation saved? Why weren’t Felix and Drusilla saved?
I’m a hopeless mess.
Fri, Aug 4, 12:27 AM
G. K. wrote:
[Dr. Thomas L.] Constable, referring to Felix, mentions how as people get older, they harden their hearts more and more. He says it’s perhaps easier for people to come to faith when they are young, before they become so hardened. Then if I am indeed not saved, then perhaps it’s too late for me, or others like me. We just want our sin, harden our hearts, close our ears and eyes, and ignore it all. And now nothing will get through. I feel so without hope. And I worry about people like my friend Dave, who is also in his 40s now, and perhaps too hardened ever to come to the truth about himself, if he isn’t saved. I don’t see any good news for myself or for him, at the moment. Even if I could admit that I’m a wicked sinner, how much would I need to say/do/understand about my state for it to be enough? A brief, “Yes, I am a sinner in need of mercy” seems like it isn’t enough. That would seem like I’m just going through the motions to get what I want (mercy). How do I know I really believe I’m a lost sinner in need of mercy? There will always be a part of my mind thinking that I really did believe when I was young, so I won’t be able to admit I’m lost now, if I am lost. And so my situation gets worse with time, and more hopeless.
[Dr. Thomas L.] Constable, referring to Felix, mentions how as people get older, they harden their hearts more and more. He says it’s perhaps easier for people to come to faith when they are young, before they become so hardened. Then if I am indeed not saved, then perhaps it’s too late for me, or others like me. We just want our sin, harden our hearts, close our ears and eyes, and ignore it all. And now nothing will get through. I feel so without hope. And I worry about people like my friend Dave, who is also in his 40s now, and perhaps too hardened ever to come to the truth about himself, if he isn’t saved. I don’t see any good news for myself or for him, at the moment. Even if I could admit that I’m a wicked sinner, how much would I need to say/do/understand about my state for it to be enough? A brief, “Yes, I am a sinner in need of mercy” seems like it isn’t enough. That would seem like I’m just going through the motions to get what I want (mercy). How do I know I really believe I’m a lost sinner in need of mercy? There will always be a part of my mind thinking that I really did believe when I was young, so I won’t be able to admit I’m lost now, if I am lost. And so my situation gets worse with time, and more hopeless.
Fri, Aug 4, 10:40 AM
Jonathan wrote:
Hi __________,
I wouldn't get so discouraged, but I would suggest you stop listening to Bob Wilkin; he's a false teacher! You said: "I can't escape the idea that repentance from sin really is necessary for salvation." I would agree if by "sin" you mean the sin of unbelief (see John 16:8-9). So we have to "accurately handle the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). In regards to Revelation 9:21, I don't see how that in any way disproves repentance as a change of mind. Because obviously before someone can change their actions they must change their mind!
No offense, but who is saying that about Felix and Drusilla? You said: "And in Acts, when Paul preaches to Felix and Drusilla, he preaches about self-control, not the gospel." That's not true, because Acts 24:24 says that they sent for Paul "and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus." That is the gospel! And you said that Felix and Drusilla "were living in adultery". Again, where are you getting that from? My Bible says, "Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife" (Acts 24:24).
In regards to your question: "Can I Keep My Sin and Go to Heaven?" what you're really asking is: "Do I Have to Stop Sinning to Get Saved?" Regarding this, Roger Post has well said: “To preach that repentance is ‘turning from sins’ is ambiguous, for it presupposes people understand what is signified by ‘turning from.’ If ‘turning from sins’ means to stop sinning, and people can be saved only if they stop sinning, it is unlikely that anyone has ever been saved. Many people who resolved to stop sinning at an emotional part of a decision and a confused proclamation of ‘repentance’ are afterwards emotionally devastated to discover that they still sin.” (Roger Post, “The Meanings of the Words Translated ‘Repent’ and ‘Repentance’ in the New Testament,” Master’s Thesis, Wheaton College, June 1972, pp. 66-67. Note: This statement by Roger Post is quoted by Richard A. Seymour in his book All About Repentance [Hollywood, FL: Harvest House Publishers, 1974], pp. 47-48.) Dr. Curtis Hutson makes the same point in his booklet titled Repentance: What Does the Bible Teach? Under the heading “Faulty Ideas About Repentance”, Hutson writes the following: “We suppose there are many faulty ideas about repentance, but we will deal here with the more popular ones. Perhaps the most popular false idea is that repentance is turning from sin. We have heard some well-known preachers say, ‘If you want to be saved, repent of your sins, turn from your sins.’ If turning from your sins means to stop sinning, then people can only be saved if they stop sinning. And it is unlikely that anyone has ever been saved, since we don’t know anyone who has ever stopped sinning.” (Hutson, Repentance: What Does the Bible Teach? [Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1986], p. 4.) For more information in regards to the question, “Do I Have to Stop Sinning to Get Saved?” see my blog post titled: “Must A Person Stop Sinning To Receive Eternal Life?” (FGFS, Dec 31, 2022). I hope this helps! God Bless
Fri, Aug 4, 11:02 AM
No offense, but who is saying that about Felix and Drusilla? You said: "And in Acts, when Paul preaches to Felix and Drusilla, he preaches about self-control, not the gospel." That's not true, because Acts 24:24 says that they sent for Paul "and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus." That is the gospel! And you said that Felix and Drusilla "were living in adultery". Again, where are you getting that from? My Bible says, "Felix arrived with Drusilla, his wife" (Acts 24:24).
In regards to your question: "Can I Keep My Sin and Go to Heaven?" what you're really asking is: "Do I Have to Stop Sinning to Get Saved?" Regarding this, Roger Post has well said: “To preach that repentance is ‘turning from sins’ is ambiguous, for it presupposes people understand what is signified by ‘turning from.’ If ‘turning from sins’ means to stop sinning, and people can be saved only if they stop sinning, it is unlikely that anyone has ever been saved. Many people who resolved to stop sinning at an emotional part of a decision and a confused proclamation of ‘repentance’ are afterwards emotionally devastated to discover that they still sin.” (Roger Post, “The Meanings of the Words Translated ‘Repent’ and ‘Repentance’ in the New Testament,” Master’s Thesis, Wheaton College, June 1972, pp. 66-67. Note: This statement by Roger Post is quoted by Richard A. Seymour in his book All About Repentance [Hollywood, FL: Harvest House Publishers, 1974], pp. 47-48.) Dr. Curtis Hutson makes the same point in his booklet titled Repentance: What Does the Bible Teach? Under the heading “Faulty Ideas About Repentance”, Hutson writes the following: “We suppose there are many faulty ideas about repentance, but we will deal here with the more popular ones. Perhaps the most popular false idea is that repentance is turning from sin. We have heard some well-known preachers say, ‘If you want to be saved, repent of your sins, turn from your sins.’ If turning from your sins means to stop sinning, then people can only be saved if they stop sinning. And it is unlikely that anyone has ever been saved, since we don’t know anyone who has ever stopped sinning.” (Hutson, Repentance: What Does the Bible Teach? [Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1986], p. 4.) For more information in regards to the question, “Do I Have to Stop Sinning to Get Saved?” see my blog post titled: “Must A Person Stop Sinning To Receive Eternal Life?” (FGFS, Dec 31, 2022). I hope this helps! God Bless
Fri, Aug 4, 11:02 AM
Jonathan wrote:
Hi __________,
I took a look at Dr. Contable's Notes on Acts, particularly what he says about Paul preaching before Felix in Acts 24. Notice what Dr. Constable says on Acts 24:24, "Paul's emphases in his interview with Felix and Drusilla were the same three things that Jesus Christ had predicted the Holy Spirit would convict people about that would bring them to faith. These things were sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8-11)." This is very significant because in John 16:8-9, Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will convict the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment, "of sin because they don't believe in Me" (Jn. 16:9). This is what the unsaved must change their minds ("repent") about: unbelief in Christ! This is the one damning sin: unbelief in Christ. Thus, if we define repentance as "turning from sin", it is specifically about the one sin of unbelief in Christ. I noted this numerous times in my article "The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians". Note that this is entirely consistent with saying that saving repentance is a change of mind from unbelief in Christ to belief in Christ.
Dr. J. Vernon McGee also has some helpful commentary on Paul's sermon to Felix in Acts 24. For more information, see Dr. McGee's commentary Acts: Chapters 15-28.
Fri, Aug 4, 2:02 PM
Dr. J. Vernon McGee also has some helpful commentary on Paul's sermon to Felix in Acts 24. For more information, see Dr. McGee's commentary Acts: Chapters 15-28.
Fri, Aug 4, 2:02 PM
G. K. wrote:
Thank you, Jonathan, for your thoughtful responses. God bless you for taking the time to go through my questions with such patience and detail.
I'm not able to see McGee's commentary on Felix and Drusilla for some reason. It says that borrowing is unavailable. Usually there is an option to borrow.
As far as Felix, it says he had a more perfect knowledge of that way. That makes me wonder how much of the Gospel he already knew. And if he was familiar with it, why did he tremble and dismiss Paul? The Gospel is good news to be believed. Why react with fear and trembling, and then send Paul away? This is why I can't help but wonder if Paul did in fact emphasize turning from sin, and that shook Felix. I can't remember where exactly I read that Drusilla was his 3rd wife, and that he'd been known as a man with little self-control. He had convinced Drusilla to leave her husband for him. So Paul's message must have really cut into him. But again, why would it cut, if he was only being asked to believe? He was just being told about faith in Jesus. This makes me wonder whether he was preaching repentance from sin, which is scary, and Felix trembled because he just couldn't handle the thought of having to turn from his life of sin. David J. Stewart said the following in a blog, which similarly confuses me:
"I've actually witnessed to some people, who refused to get saved because they weren't willing to receive the Holy Spirit into their life, because of sin. That was honest of them. They fully understood that even though they didn't have to turn from sins to BE SAVED, they knew God would expect them to turn from sins ONCE THEY ARE SAVED, and they don't want that Holy Spirit conviction."
Is this what happened to Felix? Is that possible my own case? I don't understand why someone would reject salvation even after knowing that they don't have to turn from their sins to be saved. That would be good news. So why tremble and reject it? And if these people he mentions heard the truth, and understood it... we're saved when we simply hear and believe the truth. So I'm confused. Why even mention that the Holy Spirit would convict them later? If the truth is simply believing, what hindered them? Sin. The desire for sin. Well, I don't always want to let my sin go either, and I'm told I don't have to (to be saved). And though a person should obey after salvation, we don't always, but we're still saved. So it seems the desire to hold on to sin can still keep a person from belief, and I don't understand why. And of course, that makes me wonder if the same applies to me. My desire to hang on to sin is keeping me lost, if in fact I am not saved. But I really don't know how much more I can believe than I already do. I can't articulate my thought process well, so please forgive the confusion. I just see myself in those people somehow, and they went away unsaved. So what's the difference between them and me?
As far as Revelation, I can see your point about their not believing, but then why not just say they refused to believe? Why emphasize the lack of repentance unless turning from sin really is necessary for salvation? Why does it not simply read, "Neither believed they the Gospel of our Lord Jesus."? There seems to be a heavy emphasis on the lack of turning from sin if all they needed to do was believe.
I'm not trying to come across as argumentative in any of these questions. I'm not argumentative by nature. These are just the follow-up questions that pop into my head as I read your responses.
Thank you for your graciousness in responding to me.
Fri, Aug 4, 4:52 PM
Thank you, Jonathan, for your thoughtful responses. God bless you for taking the time to go through my questions with such patience and detail.
I'm not able to see McGee's commentary on Felix and Drusilla for some reason. It says that borrowing is unavailable. Usually there is an option to borrow.
As far as Felix, it says he had a more perfect knowledge of that way. That makes me wonder how much of the Gospel he already knew. And if he was familiar with it, why did he tremble and dismiss Paul? The Gospel is good news to be believed. Why react with fear and trembling, and then send Paul away? This is why I can't help but wonder if Paul did in fact emphasize turning from sin, and that shook Felix. I can't remember where exactly I read that Drusilla was his 3rd wife, and that he'd been known as a man with little self-control. He had convinced Drusilla to leave her husband for him. So Paul's message must have really cut into him. But again, why would it cut, if he was only being asked to believe? He was just being told about faith in Jesus. This makes me wonder whether he was preaching repentance from sin, which is scary, and Felix trembled because he just couldn't handle the thought of having to turn from his life of sin. David J. Stewart said the following in a blog, which similarly confuses me:
"I've actually witnessed to some people, who refused to get saved because they weren't willing to receive the Holy Spirit into their life, because of sin. That was honest of them. They fully understood that even though they didn't have to turn from sins to BE SAVED, they knew God would expect them to turn from sins ONCE THEY ARE SAVED, and they don't want that Holy Spirit conviction."
Is this what happened to Felix? Is that possible my own case? I don't understand why someone would reject salvation even after knowing that they don't have to turn from their sins to be saved. That would be good news. So why tremble and reject it? And if these people he mentions heard the truth, and understood it... we're saved when we simply hear and believe the truth. So I'm confused. Why even mention that the Holy Spirit would convict them later? If the truth is simply believing, what hindered them? Sin. The desire for sin. Well, I don't always want to let my sin go either, and I'm told I don't have to (to be saved). And though a person should obey after salvation, we don't always, but we're still saved. So it seems the desire to hold on to sin can still keep a person from belief, and I don't understand why. And of course, that makes me wonder if the same applies to me. My desire to hang on to sin is keeping me lost, if in fact I am not saved. But I really don't know how much more I can believe than I already do. I can't articulate my thought process well, so please forgive the confusion. I just see myself in those people somehow, and they went away unsaved. So what's the difference between them and me?
As far as Revelation, I can see your point about their not believing, but then why not just say they refused to believe? Why emphasize the lack of repentance unless turning from sin really is necessary for salvation? Why does it not simply read, "Neither believed they the Gospel of our Lord Jesus."? There seems to be a heavy emphasis on the lack of turning from sin if all they needed to do was believe.
I'm not trying to come across as argumentative in any of these questions. I'm not argumentative by nature. These are just the follow-up questions that pop into my head as I read your responses.
Thank you for your graciousness in responding to me.
Fri, Aug 4, 4:52 PM
Jonathan wrote:
Hi __________,
You may want to check back to see if you can read Dr. McGee's commentary on Acts 24:24. I had borrowed it earlier and that may have been why you couldn't read it. In regards to when you asked: "So Paul's message must have really cut into him. But again, why would it cut, if he was only being asked to believe?" Well because the text says that Paul told Felix about "the judgment to come" (Acts 24:25). The Bible say, "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23a). That doesn't mean that people have to stop sinning to be saved, but sin does have a penalty. The solution that is given for our sin problem is not for us to "stop sinning": if it was, then why do we need Jesus? See Gal. 2:21. But rather the solution to our sin problem is: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved!" (Acts 16:31). By the way, does Paul even mention "repentance" in his sermon to Felix? Maybe I'm missing it, but I didn't see it. Of course, a change of mind is implied; but it seems like you've made that section something like "a hill to die on" (no offense) in regards to your view of repentance, when maybe the word "repentance" isn't even mentioned there! Either way, I think there are much clearer passages to appeal to in regards to understanding biblical repentance.
I know you also mentioned Revelation 9:21, but the context doesn't say it's about salvation. Again, if we say that repentance means "turn from sins", even Wilkin doesn't make that a condition for salvation. Because that would mean that salvation is by works, or that a person would have to be perfect or sinless or stop sinning to be saved. Or at least willing to do so. Which is Lordship Salvation. That's why Wilkin doesn't make repentance (with his definition) a condition for salvation. Because otherwise he'd be advocating Lordship Salvation. So if you are going to use that definition of repentance, to stay consistent with Free Grace, you would need to say that it's not a requirement for salvation. But it seems like you are saying it is necessary for salvation. So I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. But my point is that using the "change of mind" definition of repentance is perfectly understandable in Revelation 9:21. The meaning is: the unsaved didn't "change their minds" about those sins. That's my point, highlighting the "change of mind" definition of repentance and that it makes sense grammatically and contextually there.
Blessings,
Jonathan
I know you also mentioned Revelation 9:21, but the context doesn't say it's about salvation. Again, if we say that repentance means "turn from sins", even Wilkin doesn't make that a condition for salvation. Because that would mean that salvation is by works, or that a person would have to be perfect or sinless or stop sinning to be saved. Or at least willing to do so. Which is Lordship Salvation. That's why Wilkin doesn't make repentance (with his definition) a condition for salvation. Because otherwise he'd be advocating Lordship Salvation. So if you are going to use that definition of repentance, to stay consistent with Free Grace, you would need to say that it's not a requirement for salvation. But it seems like you are saying it is necessary for salvation. So I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. But my point is that using the "change of mind" definition of repentance is perfectly understandable in Revelation 9:21. The meaning is: the unsaved didn't "change their minds" about those sins. That's my point, highlighting the "change of mind" definition of repentance and that it makes sense grammatically and contextually there.
Blessings,
Jonathan
Sat, Aug 5, 1:38 AM
G. K. wrote:
Hello Jonathan,
Thank you again for your kind, patient, and well-thought-out replies. To tell you the truth, after looking over these passages again, I'm not even sure what it was I saw in them that made me think along those lines. I think it all boils down to fear. "What if the Lordshippers are right? What if Free Gracers are just making excuses, or playing semantics?" That kind of thing. I suppose in some ways I see myself in Felix, or in the sinners in Revelation, or in those people who would not accept Jesus because of their sin. I worry that I am no different from them. And I don't want to share their fate. But I do know that I have, at least at some point, trusted in Jesus to take my sin away from me. I've felt the relief, the joy that comes with it. I've shed tears (genuinely) thanking Him for doing for me what I could not possibly have done for myself. But that fear still lingers, the doubts still come, the what-ifs still rear their ugly heads. Maybe it's from the years of Lordship teaching I sat under, coupled with a lack of confidence in myself. I was always taught to doubt myself — never trust anyone or anything, because they're all "deceivers" waiting to drag me down to hell. Please continue to pray for me, that I'll find freedom from that, and that I'll simply cling to Jesus and trust HIM over these Lordshippers whenever my doubts come rushing back. He at least has been kind to me, and has loved me, and has desired my best. They have not. Also, you referred to my "definition" of repentance as being a turning from sin — I'm sorry if I gave that impression. That is very much not my definition. That's their definition, and I'm merely asking, "Is it really so?" while hoping that it is not. I believe I told you before how I take a lot of convincing before I can let something go, not because I want it to be so, but because I must be persuaded that it is not so, lest I give myself a false sense of assurance. That's all.
Your testimony mentions that you have always been in the Grace movement. Did you never question it or have doubts? Never a time when you wondered whether the MacArthurs of the world were right? I admire your confidence in your position, and I hope that I too will have it someday. I want it to be true. I think it is. It would be an infinitely more beautiful truth than lordship salvation. Otherwise, there is no hope for someone as sinful as I am. A "scum of the earth" sinner like myself has no hope in a lordship world.
May God bless you for your willingness to help me. Really. I know it’s a lot, but it does help immensely. I suspect there is a crown waiting for you as a reward for your help to the confused, frightened and spiritually wounded.
Have a lovely weekend.
Thank you again for your kind, patient, and well-thought-out replies. To tell you the truth, after looking over these passages again, I'm not even sure what it was I saw in them that made me think along those lines. I think it all boils down to fear. "What if the Lordshippers are right? What if Free Gracers are just making excuses, or playing semantics?" That kind of thing. I suppose in some ways I see myself in Felix, or in the sinners in Revelation, or in those people who would not accept Jesus because of their sin. I worry that I am no different from them. And I don't want to share their fate. But I do know that I have, at least at some point, trusted in Jesus to take my sin away from me. I've felt the relief, the joy that comes with it. I've shed tears (genuinely) thanking Him for doing for me what I could not possibly have done for myself. But that fear still lingers, the doubts still come, the what-ifs still rear their ugly heads. Maybe it's from the years of Lordship teaching I sat under, coupled with a lack of confidence in myself. I was always taught to doubt myself — never trust anyone or anything, because they're all "deceivers" waiting to drag me down to hell. Please continue to pray for me, that I'll find freedom from that, and that I'll simply cling to Jesus and trust HIM over these Lordshippers whenever my doubts come rushing back. He at least has been kind to me, and has loved me, and has desired my best. They have not. Also, you referred to my "definition" of repentance as being a turning from sin — I'm sorry if I gave that impression. That is very much not my definition. That's their definition, and I'm merely asking, "Is it really so?" while hoping that it is not. I believe I told you before how I take a lot of convincing before I can let something go, not because I want it to be so, but because I must be persuaded that it is not so, lest I give myself a false sense of assurance. That's all.
Your testimony mentions that you have always been in the Grace movement. Did you never question it or have doubts? Never a time when you wondered whether the MacArthurs of the world were right? I admire your confidence in your position, and I hope that I too will have it someday. I want it to be true. I think it is. It would be an infinitely more beautiful truth than lordship salvation. Otherwise, there is no hope for someone as sinful as I am. A "scum of the earth" sinner like myself has no hope in a lordship world.
May God bless you for your willingness to help me. Really. I know it’s a lot, but it does help immensely. I suspect there is a crown waiting for you as a reward for your help to the confused, frightened and spiritually wounded.
Have a lovely weekend.
Sat, Aug 5, 8:43 AM
Jonathan wrote:
Hi __________,
Thank you for your kind email. You know, that's an interesting question when you asked me, "Your testimony mentions that you have always been in the Grace movement. Did you never question it or have doubts? Never a time when you wondered whether the MacArthurs of the world were right?" I've never thought about that question quite like that, but here's how I would answer. I don't think that I've ever been afraid the Lordshippers are right. I have had doubts about my salvation to some extent at times, but my fear or concern has never been about whether or not the MacArthurs in the world are right, I know they are not. I think my fear has been what if this whole thing is just not true? What if Christianity and Jesus and the Bible are just not true, and it's a crutch for weak-minded people? I think that has been one of my fears, although not the main one. I think the historicity of Christianity and the empty tomb is convincing evidence that our faith has a rock-solid basis (pun intended, thinking of the empty tomb). But I think my main fear has been what if I'm not believing in Jesus quite right? Like what if I'm missing something? Not in regards to Lordship wondering if they might be right, but what if I'm just like 95% believing the right way but maybe missing one small piece of the "puzzle" (I know it's not a puzzle) somehow? I guess to put it into words, my worry is like if or when I get to the "gates of heaven" someday (not that I doubt that I will, but I mean if that's actually the scenario) and God or an angel asks me why should I let you in, am I going to say the exact right thing? Like how strict are they going to be on saying the exact right words or things? That's my somewhat dumb fear I guess. I say dumb because I think at those times I'm over-complicating it. My name is already written in the Lamb's book of life since I've trusted in Christ (Lk. 10:20; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5, 20:15, 21:27). There probably won't even be a scenario like I'm imagining at the gates of heaven. You know, my fear is like if I say to the angel at the gates of heaven, "I'm trusting in Jesus' blood to save me; that's my only hope, my only plea." Is the angel going to be like, "Well, what about His resurrection? You forgot to mention that." And then I'll be like, "Well yes, of course. I believe that. I'm trusting in a living Savior." So that kind of thing is more what my doubts have been about. Not Lordship Salvation, but more like is there going to be a "final exam" at the gates of heaven and will I say the right thing or forget something at the last minute? It's kind of stupid I think. But that is a fear that I let get in my head sometimes and I really think it is probably an irrational fear. God knows our hearts, and he isn't trying to keep us out. I also like that Bible verse that says, "There is no fear in love" (1 Jn. 4:18). So I think the Bible answers my fears and doubts, but I have to keep dwelling on God's promises and thinking on the truths of God's Word. I have to put up the shield of faith to stop all the fiery darts of the wicked one (Eph. 6:16-18).
Many blessings to you. Have a great weekend, and thanks for giving me permission to post those questions. God Bless
Many blessings to you. Have a great weekend, and thanks for giving me permission to post those questions. God Bless
By His Grace,
Jonathan