Double Predestination: The "Dark Side" of Calvinism

Some years ago I heard Dr. Michael Vanlaningham on Moody’s Open Line radio program answering a caller’s question about Calvinism, and Vanlaningham was pushing “double predestination”: which is the view of extreme 5-point Calvinists that God not only unconditionally elects some people to heaven, but He also unconditionally elects some people to hell (even babies!) without their choice being involved at all. And I distinctly remember Vanlaningham saying that he believes God predestines some people to hell, and he described it as the “dark side” of divine providence. Let me just follow up by saying that Vanlaningham is a hardcore Calvinist. I noticed online that one of Vanlaningham’s students gave this critique of his teaching: “Dr. V is a Calvinist to the core and it even comes out in his Greek class!”[1]

But the Bible says that “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8), and an all-loving God will not play favorites by capriciously choosing some people for heaven and some people for hell without them having any choice in the matter. That’s not the God of the Bible! (The Bible says that God does not show partiality or favoritism. See Deut. 10:17; 2 Chron. 19:7; Prov. 24:23, 28:21; Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; James 2:9, etc.) Of course Calvinists have their proof texts, but they don't hold up to scrutiny. See the excellent response by Dr. Norman Geisler titled: “Why I Am Not a Five Point Calvinist”.[2]

Related to Dr. Vanlaningham’s comments about the “dark side” of God’s providence, notice the following transcript from Moody Radio’s Open Line with Dr. Michael Rydelnik.[3] Here’s what Vanlaningham said in regards to “double predestination,” or what he calls the “dark side” of God’s providence:

Michael Rydelnik: “Okay, I got another question here. This one comes from Ed. He wants to know if some people, created by God, are also predestined to go to Hell and suffer forever exclusively for God’s glory?”

Michael Vanlaningham: “Um, yeah Ed. I’m gonna give you an answer that you’re not gonna like. And it’s a hard, hard, hard answer. In Romans chapter 9, it talks about that very thing. It says in verse 21, ‘Does not the potter’ (that would be God), ‘have a right over the clay’ (that would be all of humanity), ‘Does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use [i.e. the church, cf. Rom. 9:23-24], and another for common use [i.e. unrepentant Israel, cf. Jer. 18:1-18, 19:1-13]?’ Now in the context of Romans chapter 9, what we’re talking about is salvation. [Editor’s note: Actually, Romans chapter 9 is about the past national election of Israel, not individual election to salvation.] And so Paul’s point seems to be, that God has a right to save some — to take some from humanity for salvation, and to take others from humanity for condemnation. You have to read the context to get the idea of salvation. And then it says in verse 19, just before that, ‘You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? Who resists His will?’ On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Will it? Does not the potter have the right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use [i.e. the church, cf. Rom. 9:23-24] and another for common use [i.e. unrepentant Israel, cf. Jer. 18:1-18, 19:1-13]?’ That is, Paul anticipates that there are going to be people who will object to the concept, and yet he says it is not our place to argue it with an angry sense against who God is and what He does. We have to be very careful about that. Finally, in the same passage it says (related to Pharaoh in verse 17), ‘For the Scripture says to Pharaoh’ (God said to Pharaoh), ‘For this very purpose I raised you up to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.’ Pharaoh was born, he was put into the position of leading Egypt, he hardened his own heart [!] and God hardened his heart. [Editor’s note: Notice that Vanlaningham just admitted that Pharaoh first hardened his own heart, and then God confirmed Pharaoh’s choice.] Why? So that God could demonstrate His power and make His mighty name proclaimed. [Editor’s note: Exactly right. God's purpose was not to send Pharaoh to hell, but rather it was to "demonstrate His power and make His mighty name proclaimed" by raising up Pharaoh "into the position of leading Egypt" and bring him onto the stage of world events.] And so what happens is, yes, I think as hard as this is to hear, and it’s hard, and I have unbelievers in my immediate family — my brother and my sister and my mom, and yet I have to grapple with the idea that God may not have chosen them to accept Christ and to be saved. [Editor's note: Notice how Vanlaningham shifts the focus; the apostle Paul wasn't saying that God created Pharoah to go to hell.] I don’t know that. We don’t know who is among the elect and who isn’t. But those who are not, God has determined that, and He will bring glory to Himself — as he does with Pharaoh, eventually when He judges them. And that’s exactly what He did with Pharaoh, and that’s what God does with unbelievers, and that’s a hard, hard, hard, dark side to the providence of God. But it’s still providence. [Editor’s note: But the Bible says in 1 John 1:5 that “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all”!] And this is still how God functions [according to Calvinism] — hard to hear though isn’t it?”[4]

Tricia McMillan: “Yeah, it is.”

* * *

But in response to Vanlaningham’s Calvinistic (and unbiblical) view of God’s providence, Dr. J. Vernon McGee has well said: “There never will be a person in hell who did not choose to be there, my friend. You are the one who makes your own decision.”[5]

 

References:

[1] Comment by GREEKGRAMMAR1, “Mike Vanlaningham,” Rate My Professors website, December 17th, 2014 (accessed 12/27/2023). Interestingly, another student of Vanlaningham’s gave this critique of his class on Romans: “Had him for Romans. V[anlaningham] uses his teaching position to explain why he’s right and everyone else is wrong. Students’ questions are swatted down. Papers are graded on format more than actual content. A student was told to ‘shut up’ for voicing a contrary view. If you want a narrow-minded, unforgiving class on Romans, take V[anlaningham].” Comment by BI441002, “Mike Vanlaningham,” Rate My Professors website, March 7th, 2014 (accessed 12/27/2023).

[2] Norman Geisler, “Why I Am Not a Five Point Calvinist,” Richard Kalk YouTube channel (posted September 30, 2019, although Geisler’s original sermon appears to be from sometime around 2009), www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwNZhdPqGDE (accessed 12/27/2023).

[3] Michael Vanlaningham, Moody Radio’s Open Line with Dr. Michael Rydelnik. Airtime: Saturday, May 12, 2018, 10:00am – 12:00pm. Hour 1: The Other Michael Answers Your Bible Questions, Hour 2: Bible Q & A with the Other Michael. My transcript is from Hour 2, timestamp: 33:26 minutes – 36:52 minutes. Note: Unfortunately this particular episode has since been removed from the Open Line website, but I transcribed the audio back in 2018 before it was deleted. 

[4] Michael Vanlaningham, Moody Radio’s Open Line with Dr. Michael Rydelnik. “Bible Q & A with the Other Michael” (May 12, 2018), time stamp: 33:26 – 36:52 minutes, brackets added.

 

[5] J. Vernon McGee, Romans: Chapters 9-16 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1991), p. 32.

What's the Difference Between the Law and the Gospel?

The Difference Between the Law and the Gospel 

“rightly dividing the Word of Truth” (2 Tim. 2:15) 

The difference between the Law and the Gospel is admirably pointed out by John Foxe, the noted author of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, in the following words:

   

“[Read Martin Luther’s writings:] First for true comfort and spiritual consolation to such weak minds as in cases of conscience are distressed, and wrestle in faith against the terror of Satan, of death, of damnation, against the power of the Law, and wrath of God; wherein I see very few or none (without comparison be it spoken) in these our days, to instruct more fruitfully, with like feeling and experience.     

Secondly, for discerning and discussing the difference between the Law and the Gospel, how these two parts are to be separated and distincted asunder as repugnant and contrary, and yet notwithstanding how they both stand together in Scripture and doctrine [i.e. that “the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ,” Gal. 3:24], and yet in doctrine no repugnance. The knowledge whereof how requisite it is for all Christians to learn, the miserable lack thereof will soon declare. For where these two be not rightly parted, but confounded [as in John MacArthur’s book The Gospel According to Jesus], what can follow there, but confusion of conscience, either leading to despair [when there is a lack of good works in one’s life], or else to blind security [when good works are present], without any order in doctrine, or true comfort of salvation? As by examples of time is soon seen, namely if we look into the later times of the Romish Church, where for want of right distinguishing between these two [i.e. between Law and Grace], great errors have risen; and no great marvel. For where the Gospel is taken for the Law, and the Law for the Gospel, and Christ received but only for a lawgiver: and where things go by works and law of deserving, what hope or assurance of salvation can be there, considering our works in their best kind be so imperfect and unprofitable? And what shall be said then of our naughty works? But especially what shall be said then to the mourning and lamenting sinner, who feeleth no good thing dwelling in him, but all wickedness? [Such a one] shall then despair, or how else will ye comfort him? For if Christ in His principal office be but a Teacher of the law and of works, and that be the chiefest thing to be required in a Christian, to work salvation by the law of working: where is then grace, mercy, promise, faith justifying, peace and rest of conscience, redemption from malediction of the law, if we be under the law still? Briefly, where is the new covenant of God made by His Son, if the old covenant made by Moses do yet remain? If it do not remain, then must there needs be a difference between the Law and the Gospel: between the old Testament and the new: between the law of works & the law of faith: between Moses and Christ, between the master and the servant: between Hagar and Sarah, and their two children. Now what difference this is, thou shalt not need, Christian Reader, by me to be instructed, having here the book of Martin Luther to read and peruse. Who as in his former Treatise before set forth upon the Epistle to the Galatians, so likewise in these his Commentaries upon the Psalms, doth so lively and at large discourse that matter, with many other things more, full of heavenly instruction and edification, that having him, though thou hadst no other expositor upon the holy Scripture, thou mayest have almost sufficient to make a perfect soldier against all the fiery darts of the tempting enemy. Again, having all other, and lacking this writer [i.e. Martin Luther], thou shouldest yet want something to the perfect practice and experience of a Christian Divine.”[1]

Reference: 

[1] John Foxe, “To The Christian Reader”, Martin Luther’s A Commentarie Upon the Fifteene Psalmes (London: 1615), no page number. Editor’s note: The spelling of certain archaic words has been updated in order to conform to modern English spelling.

Biblical Repentance: Does It Mean "Change Your Mind"?

Question #1:
“1. Acts 28:4-6 ‒ The locals were expecting Paul to drop dead, but after seeing that nothing happened to him, they ‘changed their minds’ ‒ from the Greek metaballomai. Pruitt’s argument is that if metanoeō means to change the mind, why not use it here? Instead he uses an entirely different verb.”

Answer:
In response I’d ask, what’s wrong with using a synonym? We do it all the time! Basically Pruitt is arguing that we are not allowed to use synonyms, or that doing so somehow calls into question the “change your mind” meaning of metanoeō. But this is hardly the case, as the following example from Josephus shows. Notice that in the following quotation, Josephus uses both metanoeō and metaballomai in the same context and synonymously. I will copy and paste the quote from my article “The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians”. Notice the following statement from Josephus:

Wars of the Jews, book 3, chapter 6, section 3 (Whiston translation):
“And thus did Vespasian march with his army, and came to the bounds of Galilee, where he pitched his camp and restrained his soldiers, who were eager for war; he also showed his army to the enemy, in order to affright them, and to afford them a season for repentance [metanoias], to see whether they would change their minds [metabalointo; cf. Acts 28:6] before it came to a battle, and at the same time he got things ready for besieging their strong holds. And indeed this sight of the general brought many to repent [metanoian] of their revolt...”

Question #2:
“2. In response to the accusation that Lordship salvation is works-based, he responds saying that since repentance is a gift from God, then the resulting change is a work of God’s grace, not our work. So, it is not works-based after all (I can imagine his smug grin). How does one counter that argument?”

Answer:
But in the Calvinistic view, everything is a work of God’s grace! They teach that God is hyper-sovereign (in the extreme Calvinistic sense of the word), and God “makes” everything happen. Does this mean that people are “off the hook” and not responsible for anything, including works? For example, clearly the apostle Paul tells Christians to do good works! Are these actions not to be called “works” because they are wrought by the Holy Spirit? Hardly. And furthermore, Christians will be rewarded for their works at the Bema Seat of Christ (see 1 Cor. 3:10-14), even though such works are clearly wrought by the Holy Spirit. So Pruitt’s argument trying to redefine or dismiss works wrought by the Holy Spirit from somehow not being our works is a faulty argument. Just because works are wrought or produced by the Holy Spirit does not make them something besides “works”: they are still “works”! 

 

In answer to Pruitt’s claim that Lordship Salvation is not works-based because the works are wrought by the Holy Spirit, I like the statement by Todd Vierheller from his amazon book review of Wayne Grudem’s book on “Free Grace” theology. Vierheller says: “When your salvation directly depends upon your works [Holy Spirit wrought or not], I have trouble calling that salvation by faith—because it’s not. Salvation is either by grace or it’s by works – not both (Rom 11:6). If you are not saved unless you turn from sin [i.e. sinful behaviors] and do additional good works, that isn’t salvation by faith regardless of how much wild gesticulation [hand gesturing] accompanies the claim.”

Question #3:
“3. Epistrephō [in the NT], or shub, in the OT, implies a turning from sin in obedience to the law. So, in Acts 26:20, how is the turning spoken of there (epistrephō) somehow not connected to turning in obedience or forsaking sin? Also Acts 3:19 ‒ repent and be converted (turned, epistrephō, OT turning...)”

Answer:
I would say that what the “turning” is in reference to depends on the context. You mentioned Acts 26:20. This is where the apostle Paul says that he preached that all men “should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance.” I would point out at least three things in regards to this: (1) the “performing deeds” is separate from and comes after the repentance and turning to God, (2) the turning is described as being “to God,” (3) the turning is connected with the repentance: “repent and turn to God”. It reminds me of when Jesus says: “Repent and believe the gospel!” (Mk. 1:15). These are not two separate conditions for salvation, but rather two parts or two aspects of one condition. I like to describe it like two sides of the same coin, the coin being saving faith. Dr. Scofield has well said, "Saving faith...includes and implies that change of mind which is called repentance." (C. I. Scofield, Editor, The Scofield Reference Bible [New York: Oxford University Press, 1909], p. 1174, note 2.)

In 1 Thessalonians 1:8-9 Paul describes the conversion of the Thessalonians and commends them by saying, “For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God has gone forth, so that we have no need to say anything. For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols...” (vv. 8-9a). Then Paul adds the purpose: “to serve a living and true God” (1:9b). That last part of the verse (1:9b) has to do with service, not salvation. It is salvation first (vv. 8-9a), then service (v. 9b). So here in 1 Thess. 1:8-9 we see that the turning to God from idols is a description of saving faith, and has to do with their belief system: they changed their minds about God and transferred their trust to Him alone. They realized that their idols were worthless false gods, and they turned in faith (transferred their trust) to trust in the one true God!

So getting back to Acts 26:20, the way I understand the phrase “repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance” (v. 20b), is in other words: “change your thinking and transfer your trust to God: the one and only true God, then do good works appropriate to that change of mind” (Acts 26:20; cf. Eph. 2:8-10; 1 Thess. 1:8-9). You mentioned the Old Testament. Some OT examples of turning to God for salvation would be in the illustration that Jesus told to Nicodemus in John chapter 3, about how the dying Israelites had to turn in faith and look to the bronze serpent lifted up on a pole in order to be healed. Jesus explained that sinners must look to Him “lifted up” on the cross in order to be saved (Jn. 3:14-17). People must turn to Him in faith to be saved, or as it says in the Old Testament (from the illustration that Jesus gave to Nicodemus about the bronze serpent lifted up on the standard): “And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived” (Num. 21:9, emphasis added). As Pastor Chuck Swindoll has said: there was no issue made of Lordship-looking, no clean-up-your-life-looking, no I-promise-to-do-better-looking. It was just look and live! Regarding this, Jesus said to Nicodemus: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes [turns in faith or transfers their trust to “the Son of Man ... lifted up”] may in Him have eternal life” (Jn. 3:14-15). It reminds me of another OT Scripture where God says through the prophet Isaiah: “Turn to Me [some Bible translations say “Look to Me”], and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other” (Isa. 45:22, NASB). This again is a transfer of trust ‒ not a transfer of allegiance, not a commitment of “I-promise-to-do-better,” but a simple look of faith to the Savior! “Look and live!” “Look and live!” It reminds me of the old hymn that says: “There’s life for a look at the Crucified One, there’s life at this moment for thee!” Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, has well said: “It is true that repentance can very well be required as a condition of salvation, but then only because the change of mind which it is has been involved when turning from every other confidence to the one needful trust in Christ. Such turning about, of course, cannot be achieved without a change of mind. This vital newness of mind [repentance] is a part of believing, after all, and therefore it may be and is used as a synonym for believing at times”.[1]

 

Reference:

[1] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), vol. 7, p. 265, emphasis his. For more information see the article by Dr. Charlie Bing titled: “Is Repentance in John’s Gospel?” (GraceNotes, Number 83).

Grudem's "Free Grace" Excludes Its Founders

I recently noticed how Wayne Grudem misrepresents “Free Grace” theology BIG TIME! Although Grudem's book on the topic is titled “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Crossway Publishers, 2016), it really does not fairly critique mainstream “Free Grace” theology, because it mostly focuses on minority views within the movement (i.e. the teachings of Zane Hodges and his followers). For example, I looked at the General Index of Grudem’s book (pp. 152-156), and to my shock and surprise I realized that Charles Ryrie’s name isn’t even listed! For those who may be unaware, Charles Ryrie is probably one of the foremost Free Grace theologians of all time. Yet strangely, Grudem never mentions him anywhere in the book! The same can be said in regards to Lewis Sperry Chafer, arguably one of the most influential voices in the Free Grace movement. You won’t find Chafer’s name in Grudem’s book either, not even in a footnote! How can anyone honestly write a book about “Free Grace” theology and never once mention two of its most well-known proponents? If the “shoe were on the other foot,” this would be like writing a book purporting to be about “Calvinism” and then never once mentioning John Calvin or Theodore Beza (Calvin's successor in Geneva), but instead discussing a minority view. It would be like writing a book purporting to critique “Calvinism” but only discussing the off-shoot view of Amyraldianism. (Amyraldianism is generally rejected by mainstream Calvinists.) This is the logical fallacy called “The straw man argument”: misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. There are actually more references to Zane Hodges in the General Index of Grudem’s book than there are references to Jesus Christ and John MacArthur combined! Grudem strangely has a myopic fixation on Zane Hodges, to the exclusion of other (more prominent) Free Grace voices. And worse, Grudem seems bent on giving the (false) impression that the views of Zane Hodges characterize the Free Grace movement. Sadly, Grudem's book appears to be built on the premise that the views of Zane Hodges are representative of Free Grace theology in general. But this is hardly the case, as even a novice could tell from reading a single Wikipedia article on the subject! Thus, Grudem’s entire book is built on a completely false premise and is a misrepresentation of Free Grace theology.

Debunking Calvinism: How Is Saving Faith "Not Alone"?

John Calvin

In his book So Great Salvation, Free Grace theologian Charles Ryrie says that “Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow.”[1] From a Free Grace perspective, Ryrie’s statement is helpful because it explains (and defuses) the often-quoted Calvinistic axiom that: “We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that saves is not alone.” Calvinists interpret this axiom to be referring specifically to good works,[2] but notice that’s not what the statement actually says! It simply says that the faith that saves is not alone. Thus, Free Grace people can agree with the statement as it is stated (i.e. without the Calvinistic twist), in that we agree that the faith that saves “will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow.” And thus, the faith that saves is “not alone”! It will bear spiritual fruit: somewhere, sometime, somehow. And what is “spiritual fruit” according to the Bible? The apostle Paul says in Galatians 5:22, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience,” etc. These qualities are spiritual, and are in distinction to overtly “good works”.[3]

 

Let’s take a closer look at the Calvinistic view of saving faith and how they inject good works into the whole equation. Wayne Grudem says “that ‘the faith that saves is never alone’ because it is always accompanied by good works [in a person’s life], and numerous New Testament passages such as Galatians 6:7-9 point to that conclusion.”[4] When Grudem says that numerous NT passages “point to that conclusion,” he’s basically admitting that those passages don’t explicitly prove his point; thus he merely says they “point to that conclusion.” It’s obvious that Grudem is looking at the biblical text through the rose-colored stained glass windows of his Calvinistic belief system! But if we let the Bible speak for itself, it does not point to that conclusion. 

 

Take Galatians 6:7-9 as an example, the biblical reference that Grudem cited. How does it show that saving faith “is always accompanied by good works”? If anything, Galatians 6:7-9 shows exactly the opposite! How so? Well, look at the text. What does it say? The apostle Paul specifically says that “those who sow to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption” (Gal. 6:8). In context, Paul is talking about believers who are selfish and don’t share (cf. Gal. 6:6). Commenting on Galatians 6:6, H. A. Ironside writes: “He who seeks only to be benefited by others and is not concerned about sharing with them, will have a Dead Sea kind of life [i.e. stagnant; nothing flowing out].”[5] Ironside goes on to say: “whether it be the case of the unsaved worldling, or the failing Christian, the inexorable law will be fulfilled—we reap what we sow.”[6] Maybe Grudem doesn’t understand this, but according to the Word of God, believers can indeed “reap corruption”! (See Gal. 6:8; cf. 1 Cor. 3:10-15; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Jn. 8; Rev. 3:11.) Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 3:15 that it’s entirely possible for some Christians to get to Heaven “by the skin of their teeth”—with no good works, everything “burned up” (Gr. κατακαήσεται = “to burn up, consume entirely”), i.e. “saved yet so as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:15, NASB). And the apostle Peter says that some Christians will be “barely saved” (1 Pet. 4:18, NET Bible). D. L. Moody has well said: 

 

“Salvation is as free as the air we breathe; it is a gift, to be obtained without money and without price. [Isa. 55:1.] You cannot have salvation on any other terms; it is given not to him that worketh but to him that believeth. [Rom. 4:5.] But, on the other hand, if we are to have a crown, we must work for it. I want to speak of the overcoming life, the victorious life, and to show the difference between having life and having a reward. Let me read a few verses in 1 Corinthians. ‘For other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if any man buildeth on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble; each man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it is revealed in fire: and the fire itself shall prove each man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work shall abide, which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire.’ 1 Cor. 3:11-15. We see clearly from this that we may be saved, but all our works burned up; I may have a wretched, miserable voyage through life, with no victory, and no reward at the end; saved yet so as by fire, or as Job puts it, ‘with the skin of my teeth.’ [Job 19:20.] I believe that a great many men will barely get to heaven, as Lot got out of Sodom, burned out, nothing left, works and everything destroyed.”[7]  

 

Commenting on Galatians 6:8, H. A. Ironside affirms that “at the judgment seat of Christ, we shall reap according to our sowing. They who live for God now will receive rich reward in that day. And they who yield now to the impulses of the flesh and are occupied with things that do not glorify God will suffer loss [cf. 1 Cor. 3:15].”[8] Commenting on the same verse, Everett F. Harrison similarly states: “A selfish Christian soweth to his flesh, spending his resources to gratify his own personal desires. He may expect to reap corruption. That which might have brought reward by being invested in the Lord’s work will be nothing but a decayed mass, a complete loss in terms of eternity. On the other hand, by responding to the Spirit in love and kindness, and gladly participating in the extension of the Gospel by supporting Christian workers, believers will be adding interest to the capital of eternal life. This passage is capable of broader application, in line with the proverbial character of the statement in verse 7. But flesh and Spirit suggest primary application to the believer (cf. 5:17, 24, 25), in line with the immediate context.”[9] 

 

In light of these biblical truths, it becomes clear that Galatians 6:7-9 does not point to the conclusion that saving faith will always be accompanied by good works; if anything, it shows exactly the opposite! There are “Dead Sea” Christians who are stagnant: they are doing nothing for the cause of Christ. These believers are saved because their foundation is Christ, but they will not have any reward to show for their earthly life. They “will be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:15). 

 

And yet this faith is still a productive faith because it has born the spiritual fruit of “peace with God” (Rom. 5:1; cf. Gal. 5:22) and joy in the presence of the angels in heaven (Lk. 15:7, 10; cf. Gal. 5:22). Commenting on Romans 5:1, even John Calvin affirms: “We have peace with God and this is the peculiar fruit of the righteousness of faith.”[10]

 

For more information see my blog post series titled “Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith”, Parts 1-4.

References:

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

 

[2] Wayne Grudem, “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel [of “Lordship Salvation”] (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), p. 139, footnote 31. 

 

[3] For more information see my article: “Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith, Part 2”.

[4] Wayne Grudem, “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel [of “Lordship Salvation”], p. 139, footnote 31. Also see pp. 20, 34, 35, and 38.

 

[5] H. A. Ironside, Expository Messages on the Epistle to the Galatians (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1941), pp. 217. 

[6] Ibid, p. 218.

 

[7] D. L. Moody, “The Overcoming Life.” An address delivered Saturday morning, July 6, 1895. Northfield Bible Conference, Summer 1895. Northfield Echoes, Vol. II, p. 452. Note: The Roman numerals in the original statement have been updated to the current format.

[8] Ibid, p. 219.

 

[9] Everett F. Harrison, “The Epistle to the Galatians.” Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, Editors, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1962), pp. 1297-1298, emphasis his.

 

[10] John Calvin, “Commentary on Romans 5.” Calvin’s Commentary on the Bible. www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/romans-5.html. 1840-57

More Thoughts on Phil Johnson's Sermon: "Answering the Antinomians"

Phil Johnson

After listening to Phil Johnson’s 1 hour and 15 minute sermon titled “Answering the Antinomians”, what I noticed is that he didn’t mainly go back to the Bible, but rather he kept pushing John MacArthur’s books, particularly The Gospel According to Jesus, and The Gospel According to the Apostles. I thought Mr. Johnson’s arguments were very weak, he basically just name-called the opposing side in the debate, labeling them as “Antinomians” because we believe that “we are not under law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14). And no, in case anyone is wondering, Mr. Johnson didn’t even attempt to explain that verse! I also noticed that it was not until the 1 hour and 5 minute mark when Mr. Johnson finally admits a key distinction between Law and Grace: that “the Law condemns us because we can’t obey perfectly, grace grants us forgiveness on the basis of Christ’s perfect obedience.” That’s a key distinction and a big difference between Law and Grace, and Mr. Johnson even admits it! Mr. Johnson wants to preach the Law today because it is good; Paul says yes, but only if we use it lawfully (1 Tim. 1:8-11): meaning to show a person how far we all fall short of God’s perfect and holy standard (see Romans chapters 1-3). But in this age of grace, the Mosaic Law should not be used as a rule of life (a measuring stick), but rather the Law today should be used as a mirror to show us that we all fall short of God’s perfect standard of righteousness and we are therefore sinners in need of a Savior. As the apostle Paul says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:23-24). Mr. Johnson says that Law and Grace have mostly similar messages, such as loving God and loving other people. Okay, but that doesn’t mean believers today are under the Law, just because there are similarities. Take the 10 commandments for example. Most of them are repeated in the grace teachings of the apostles to the church in this age of grace, but from the standpoint of grace, not Law. The only one of the 10 commandments that is not repeated for believers today in the age of grace is the commandment about Sabbath-keeping. Again, that doesn’t mean we are under the Law (Paul expressly says we are not!), but rather we are to do those things from the standpoint of (as Jesus said to his disciples), “If you love me, keep my commandments” (Jn. 14:15). I talked about this in the Free Grace Notes for my blog post titled: “Must Christ Be Lord To Be Savior?” | 1959 Eternity Magazine. In that blog post I reprinted the 1959 Eternity magazine article and added some Free Grace Notes at the end of the article responding to John R. Stott (an early proponent of “Lordship Salvation”). And for endnote 41 in that blog post, I made the following statement which relates to the discussion here:

[John] Stott says, “We cannot pick and choose which benefits of His death we will appropriate.” I would ask Stott: Are they benefits or requirements? Stott is turning the benefits given us at salvation into legalistic requirements that one must commit to in order to be saved! I like the following statements by Dr. J. Vernon McGee on this topic. Commenting on Ephesians 1:7, McGee writes: “We looked at the Greek words for redemption and saw that it involved the paying of a price which was the blood of Christ: we can have forgiveness because He paid the price. We know that God went into the marketplace where we were sold on the slave block of sin and He bought us, all of us. He is going to use us for Himself — He establishes a personal relationship. We saw also that He bought us in order to set us free. Now somebody will ask, ‘Doesn’t that upset the hymn that says, ‘I gave, I gave My life for thee. What hast thou done for Me’?’ My friend, it surely does. The very word for redemption in verse seven, apolutrosis, means that God never asks you what you have done for Him. That is the glorious thing about grace: when God saves you by grace, it doesn’t put you in debt to Him. He bought you in order to set you free. Someone else will ask, ‘But aren’t we supposed to serve Him?’ Certainly. But it is on another basis, a new relationship — the relationship now is love. The Lord Jesus said, ‘If ye love me, keep my commandments’ (John 14:15). He didn’t say, ‘Because I’m dying for you, you are to keep My commandments.’ He said, ‘If you love Me.’ Today, if you love Him, He wants your service. If you don’t love Him, then forget about this business of service. One hears so much today about commitment to Christ. Friend, you and I have very little to commit to Him. We are to respond in love to Him, and that is a different basis altogether. We love Him because He first loved us. . . . He paid a price for you. He gave Himself and shed His blood so that you could have forgiveness of sins. This is all yours if you are willing to come to Him and accept Him as your Savior.”

The late Miles J. Stanford wrote an excellent response specifically to Phil Johnson’s false charge of “antinomianism,” which is available here.

Phil Johnson Refers to John MacArthur as "God"

In a very revealing slip of the tongue, Phil Johnson earlier this year referred to John MacArthur as “God”, and his audience of MacArthurites applauded it! Here’s the statement by Johnson, from a sermon he delivered at this year’s Shepherd’s Conference:

“The first time I met John MacArthur face to face was in 1981. I had spent three years in youth ministry in Florida, shepherding a group of students who believed that they were Christians because they had invited Jesus into their heart [?] when they were toddlers, but they were as carnal and as unsanctified as the un-churched hoodlums in my neighborhood. [Editor’s note: It reminds me of the carnal Corinthian Christians that the apostle Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.] And so I had taken my youth group through a study of 1 John, and some of them along the way realized that they were not Christians at all, and they were soundly converted [to ‘Lordship Salvation’]. And to my surprise, their parents at first were pretty upset with me! They would scold me for teaching their kids ‘Lordship Salvation’ – a big thing in Florida because that’s where Ray Stanford was. And I was listening to Grace To You by then. Tampa was one of the first three stations that carried John MacArthur on the radio. I listened to him every day and he was preaching through 1 John, and that was extremely helpful and encouraging to me [in accepting ‘a different gospel,’ 2 Cor. 11:1-4]. And after three years I left Florida because Moody Press wanted me to return to Chicago and work for them. It would have been my second tour of duty with Moody Press. And they wanted me; they arranged for me to be at a meeting with John MacArthur to talk about The MacArthur New Testament Commentary series. And that was where I met John for the first time, around a little table with a bunch of editors and we talked about the commentaries. And afterwards we were sort of doing the social thing with coffee or whatever. And I saddled up to him because he was there by himself kind of, and I said, ‘You know, I listen to you every day on the radio, and I think you need to do a book on the Lordship issue.’ And he brightened up immediately and he said, ‘You know, I plan to. I want to. I even have a title in mind,’ he says, ‘The Gospel According to Jesus’. ‘That’s what I want to call it.’ And that was the start of my relationship with God. Or, with John MacArthur. [The audience roars with laughter and applauds.] Freudian slip! [More laughter from the audience.] There’s a bit of truth in that. [The audience laughs.] There is a bit of truth in that! [More laughter.] It had a massive impact on my relationship with God. But that was the start of my relationship with John, and uh, his book [The Gospel According to Jesus] and the sequel that came [The Gospel According to the Apostles], have been so formative in my life and thinking that they helped me finally untangle the confusion that I had carried for years between what I had read in Louis Berkhof [in his Systematic Theology] and what I had read from Charles Ryrie [in his book Balancing the Christian Life, in the chapter titled ‘Must Christ Be Lord To Be Savior?’].”[1]

 

Reference:

 
[1] Phil Johnson, “Answering the Antinomians” (March 9, 2023), Shepherd’s Conference 2023: “Shepherding the Remnant” (time stamp: 44:00 minutes – 46:30 minutes), brackets added. www.gracechurch.org/sermons/20917

The Resurrection Signs and John 20:30-31 (Pt. 2)

In my article “Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior,” I ask the following question: “Do the ‘signs’ cited in John 20:31 refer to the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples or do they refer to all the signs recorded in the book of John?” To this question I answer: “Context, chronology, Christ Himself, cross references, church-age audience, and certain scholars will demonstrate that the ‘signs’ cited in John 20:31 refer specifically to the three resurrection appearances of Jesus to His disciples.” 

To further solidify my premise that the “signs” cited in John 20:31 refer to the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples and not to all the signs recorded in the book of John, four more evidences can be added to the six listed above: common sense, claim, composer’s usage, and clarifying comments. These evidences are explained as follows:

Common sense: Commenting on my article, Greg Schliesmann says: “Jon, I was only able to spend a short time reading your paper but enjoyed it. I think the thesis of the paper is very strong. Recently I've been thinking of a couple facts that would support your thesis of John 20:31 relating to the resurrection signs. First of all, it’s interesting the so-called ‘purpose statement’ comes near the end of the book. It is well known that purpose statements for letters of the time came at the beginning, not the end.”¹ Similar to this, Charlie Bing writes: “It would be natural for any author to put the purpose statement for the entire book at the beginning”.² Even Zane Hodges affirms: “The mistake made here is simple. . . The purpose for the epistle [of 1 John] is given precisely where we would expect it to be – in the Prologue (1:1-4) [i.e. at the beginning of the book].”³

Claim of the writer: Greg Schliesmann asserts: “John 20:31 does not claim to be the purpose statement for the book but the purpose statement for the writing of ‘these signs’ (whatever they are).”⁴ Similarly, O’Day writes: “[A]ccording to the majority opinion, ‘many other signs [sēmeia]’ in v. 30 is a summary statement of all of Jesus’ activity in the Gospel. By reading the reference to signs in v. 30 so broadly, however, one misses the importance of this verse in clarifying the Evangelist’s understanding of both the resurrection appearances and signs. Rather than referring to Jesus’ entire ministry, the narrator is identifying the events of John 20 as signs.⁵ Note that also in 2:11 and 4:54 the reader is not informed that the miracles Jesus performed were “signs” until the end of the story (so also 12:18). In addition, in 2:18-20 Jesus Himself pointed to his [death and] resurrection as a sign.⁶ The narrator’s comments about signs in v. 30 thus echo the narrative commentary of 2:21-22, in which the disciples’ faith is linked to the completion of the events narrated in John 20.”⁷ As I wrote in my article “Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior”, Matthew Henry also understands the “signs” cited in John 20:30-31 as referring to the resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples, not all the signs in the book of John. Concerning this Henry writes: “[John] instructs us in the design of recording what we do find here; (v. 31.) ‘These accounts are given in this and the following chapter [i.e. John chapters 20-21], that ye might believe upon these evidences; that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, declared with power to be so by his resurrection.’ . . . [This is the] duty of those that read and hear the gospel. It is their duty to believe, to embrace the doctrine of Christ, and that record given concerning him, 1 John 5. 11.”⁸

Composer’s usage: Greg Schliesmann writes: “[S]imilar purpose statements, using the same near demonstrative pronoun (‘these’ [Greek: tauta]) found in his first epistle (1 John 2:1, 26; 5:13) refer to the immediate context, not the entire book. This would fit about your point of John 20:31 fitting solely within the scope of resurrection signs.”⁹ Similarly, speaking of John’s first epistle and 1 John 5:13 in particular, Bob Wilkin says: “Such an interpretation hinges on a questionable understanding of the first words of v 13: ‘these things I have written’ (tauta egrapsa). It is suggested that ‘these things I have written’ refers to the whole epistle. . . . This interpretation is questionable for two reasons. In the first place the expression ‘these things I have written’ occurs in two other places in the epistle—in 2:1 (with the present tense) and in 2:26. It is clear in both of those passages that ‘these things’ refers not to the whole epistle but to the immediately preceding words. That is, ‘these things I have written’ in 2:1 looks back to 1:5-10 and in 2:26 to 2:18-25. It thus is evident that ‘these things I have written’ in 5:13 looks back to 5:9-12, not the whole book.”¹⁰ Concerning 1 John 5:13 and the near demonstrative pronoun “these” (Gr. tauta), Zane Hodges affirms: “Strangely enough, the idea has taken hold in some circles that the words These things refer to the contents of the whole epistle. This view is a centerpiece for the school of thought that treats the entire epistle as a test of its readers’ salvation. We have already noted how completely far afield this perspective really is. . . . The phrase These things (Greek: Tauta) by no means refers to the entire content of the epistle, but rather to verses 6 through 12. Indeed, this near reference is consistent with John’s style elsewhere in the letter. Thus in 1:4, the words ‘these things [Greek: tauta] we write to you’ refer to what has just been mentioned in the prologue (1:1-3). In 2:1, the statement ‘these things [Greek: tauta] I write to you, so that you may not sin,’ refer to the previous discussion on sin found in 1:5-10. In the same way, the words of 2:26, ‘these things [Greek: Tauta] I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you,’ obviously refer to the preceding discussion about the antichrists in 2:18-25.”¹¹

Clarifying comments: Concerning this point O’Day writes: “[T]he intrusion of the narrator’s voice directly into the storytelling (vv. 30-31) is not unusual in the Fourth Gospel; indeed, it is one of the distinctive traits of the Fourth Evangelist’s narrative style. For example, at 11:51-52 the narrator interprets the story of Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin in order to ensure that the reader understands the full meaning of Caiaphas’s prophecy; at 2:22 and 12:16, the narrator makes explicit connections to the disciples’ situation after Jesus’ glorification; at 12:33, the narrator interprets Jesus’ words about his death for the reader (see also 18:32); and at 19:35, the narrator comments on the source and veracity of the testimony in 19:34. The narrator’s words in 20:30-31 belong to this same category of interpretive comment; the Fourth Evangelist interrupts the flow of the narrative to ensure that the reader grasps the significance of what has just been recounted. On this basis, John 21 is not an addendum. The Fourth Evangelist uses the narrator’s comments in vv. 30-31 to underscore for his readers that Jesus’ blessing in v. 29b is addressed to them; ‘you,’ the readers, are among ‘those who have not seen.’”¹²

In light of these ten truths, it is clear that John 20:31 refers to the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples and not to all the signs recorded in the book of John!

 

References:

¹ Greg Schliesmann, Pursuit of Truth blog. See the post by knetknight titled “Losing sight of the lost man” (November 1, 2007). In the comment thread, see the comment by Schliesmann on November 3, 2007 at 10:59 pm.

² Charlie Bing, “Interpreting 1 John”, GraceNotes, Number 37: 1.

³ Zane C. Hodges, “We Believe In: Assurance of Salvation”, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 3 (Autumn 90): 3.

⁴ Greg Schliesmann, Pursuit of Truth blog. See the post by knetknight titled “Losing sight of the lost man” (November 1, 2007). In the comment thread, see the comment by Schliesmann on November 3, 2007 at 10:59 pm.

⁵ At this point in the original statement there is a footnote citing: Edwyn Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 550; P. S. Minear, “The Original Functions of John 21,” 88-90.

⁶ In the original statement there is a footnote citing: P. S. Minear, “The Original Functions of John 21,” 90.

⁷ Gail R. O’Day, The New Interpreter’s Bible, 12 Vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 9:851.

⁸ Matthew Henry, Henry’s Exposition, 6 Vols. (Philadelphia: Towar & Hogan, 1828), 5:949.

⁹ Greg Schliesmann, Pursuit of Truth blog. See the post by knetknight titled “Losing sight of the lost man” (November 1, 2007). In the comment thread, see the comment by Schliesmann on November 3, 2007 at 10:59 pm.

¹⁰ Bob Wilkin, “Assurance: That You May Know”, Grace in Focus (Dec 90): 1.

¹¹ Zane C. Hodges, The Epistles of John (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 226-227.

¹² Gail R. O’Day, The New Interpreter’s Bible, 9:851.