The Cross Is Now Essential to Believe

According to Jesus, the content of saving faith now includes the cross! See John chapter 3 (vv. 14-15), when Jesus tells Nicodemus that "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up. That whosoever believes in Him [i.e. "the Son of Man...lifted up"] may have eternal life." Jesus is prophesying of His coming crucifixion and saying that AFTER His death on the cross, it will be essential to believe — not merely in Jesus, but specifically in "the Son of man...lifted up [on the cross]" — for eternal life! (See John 3:14-15, cf. Num. 21:6-9.) 

 

This dispels the frequent objection made by proponents of the "crossless" gospel, when they ask: "When were the disciples of Jesus saved, before or after the cross?" In light of Jesus' statement in John 3:14-15 that question is beside the point, because Jesus indicates that AFTER the cross is when it will be necessary to believe in what He did for us there on the cross for eternal life. In other words, after the cross is when the lost must believe in "the Son of man...lifted up" (Jn. 3:14) on Calvary's cross, on Golgotha's tree — He hung there and died for me! As the apostle Paul says: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3; cf. Num. 21:6-9; Isa. 53:5-6). Now after the cross, this is the gospel message that we preach. And it is perfectly consistent with what Jesus said in John 3:14-15!

In my blog post titled "The Cross Under Siege" (FGFS, Aug 6, 2009), I actually quoted Zane Hodges as affirming that the cross is now essential to believe for eternal life/eternal salvation, and that false doctrine says otherwise. The statement I'm referring to is when Zane Hodges says: "False doctrine...tell[s] us that it is dangerous—even wrong—to trust completely in what Christ has done for us in dying for all our sins (1 John 2:2; John 1:29)."[2] Another statement to the same effect is when Hodges goes on to say: "Either a man can look to the cross and find peace by believing, or he cannot....There is no escape from this conclusion. If I cannot trust completely in Christ and what He did on the cross, then the cross can give no peace about my eternal destiny."[3] A fitting closing statement is when Hodges says: "[In John 3:14-16] Jesus means to say, He Himself will be lifted up on the cross, and the one who looks to Him in faith will live....So, in John 3, the issue is faith, or confidence, in Christ for eternal life. Will a man look to the Crucified One for eternal life, or will he not? The man who does, lives! By this very simplicity, the Gospel confronts and refutes all its contemporary distortions."[4]

References:

[1] Jonathan Perreault, "The Cross Under Siege" (FGFS, Aug 6, 2009).

[2] Zane Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1992), p. 147, italics his.

[3] Ibid., p. 148, italics his.

 

[4] Ibid., pp. 18-19, italics his.

Get on The Bible Bus with Dr. J. Vernon McGee

I recently ordered the Thru the Bible "featured resource" from the TTB.org website: The Complete 5-Year Series Flash Drive. What follows is my review of it. Overall I would say that I am very pleased with this product (I hesitate to call it a "product," but hopefully you get the idea); this is truly an invaluable resource and well worth the $35 cost. It  did take about 10 days to arrive by mail; so if you are accustomed to the Amazon Prime next day delivery, it won't arrive that quickly. However, the shipping cost is included in the $35 price tag, which is really a bargain if you ask me. Personally, I'd probably pay 10 times that amount to get this! [Editor's note: The complete 5-year series is actually available for free download on the TTB.org website!] What I really like about it is that I don't have to wait to hear J. Vernon McGee on the radio; I can listen to him in a continuous loop just by plugging in the flash drive to my car's USB port. Each teaching segment is about 20 minutes in length, and the material is presented is a winsome, down-home style that makes listening both enjoyable and also entertaining. I say "entertaining" because Dr. McGee presents the material in such a delightful fashion that it is not dry or boring at all. On the contrary, the flash drive makes it easy to "binge listen" to Dr. McGee to your heart's content! The one area that I think could be improved to make listening a little more user-friendly is in the organization of the broadcasts. That is to say, some of the episodes do not play in sequence. So for example, you could be listening to one episode from Genesis 4, but the next episode might skip to Genesis 40. This is because the broadcasts are organized alphabetically, not necessarily chronologically. To remedy this, just be mindful of what episode is playing and make sure the next episode that plays is the correct one. If not, go to the list menu of all the broadcasts and manually select the correct broadcast. On the flip side, what's nice is that the 5-year series begins with Dr. McGee's "Guidelines for Understanding the Scriptures," and all of Dr. McGee's Notes and Outlines are also included on the flash drive, along with all his PDF booklets. What's also cool is that the flash drive looks like a school bus! So get on board The Bible Bus and journey with Dr. McGee Thru the Bible. I give this product 4.8 out of 5 stars.

Does John's Gospel Present Jesus' Burial as the Fulfillment of Scripture?

Tom Stegall is trying hard to find some biblical basis for his removal of Christ's burial from the gospel of salvation. Now he believes he has found it in the Gospel of John, of all places! Regarding this, Stegall says: "John's Gospel does not present Jesus' burial as the fulfillment of Scripture".[1] Really? Actually it does! Jesus Himself predicted His burial in John 12:7. And the Gospel of John details the fact of it in John 19:38-42, thus fulfilling Jesus' prediction. Is Stegall prepared to say that the words of Jesus are not "Scripture"?[2] In the very first chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus is said to be "the Word" of God (see John 1:14). But according to Stegall's reductionist reasoning, "the Word" of God (i.e. Jesus' prediction in John 12:7) is not "Scripture"! How sad. Furthermore, the Bible says that "all Scripture is God breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16). But if Jesus' words in John's Gospel are not "Scripture", then Stegall has bigger problems than Christ's burial in the gospel, because now he (Stegall) is calling into question the very inspiration of John's Gospel! It seems that Stegall has quite the dilemma on his hands. 

Another example of where John's Gospel presents Jesus' burial as the fulfillment of Scripture is found in John 5:39, when Jesus says that "the Scriptures...bear witness of Me"! The "Scriptures" that Jesus is referring to, of course, are particularly the Old Testament Scriptures (i.e. the Law and the Prophets). Are we to turn a blind eye to those "Scriptures" which predict His burial (e.g. Deut. 21:23; Psa. 22:15, 40:2, 85:11; Isa. 53:9)? Unfortunately, this is exactly what Stegall is doing. As God says in the Old Testament, none are so blind as those who will not see (Isa. 42:18-20). But the question bears repeating: are we not allowed to appeal to the Old Testament in John's Gospel? Jesus does! (See Jn. 5:39.) Are we to exclude those Scriptures which predict His burial? In regards to the burial of Jesus, we can of course appeal to Isaiah 53:9 as an Old Testament Scripture that can "bear witness" to it: "His grave was assigned with wicked men, but He was with a rich man in His death, because He had done no violence, nor was any deceit found in His mouth" (Isa. 53:9; cf. Jn. 8:45-46, 19:18-42). 

There is also John 5:46, where Jesus told the unbelieving Jews that Moses "wrote of Me". Are we to turn a blind eye to those passages in the Pentateuch which predict the burial of Christ? Deuteronomy 21:23 clearly makes reference to the burial of Jesus when it says: "his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance" (Deut. 21:23; cf. Jn. 19:38-42; Gal. 3:13). 

There is also the statement in John 12:24, which Stegall has tried to say only refers to Christ's death and resurrection, not His burial.[3] Such an interpretation however, appears to be a case of "special pleading" (i.e. "an argument in which a speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view"), because Jesus clearly says that the grain of wheat "falls into [Gr. eis] the earth" (not "to the earth" but "into the earth"). This is clearly figurative language for burial! The fact that Jesus reverses the chronological order of death and burial when He says that the seed "falls into the ground and dies" does not preclude the burial, because Jesus is obviously describing the normal process of the seed as picturing His own death, burial, and resurrection. Indeed, Dr. C. I. Scofield in his Reference Bible writes the following insightful comment, affirming this very truth. Scofield says: "The wave-sheaf (Lev. 23.10-12) typifies the resurrection of Christ, but a sheaf implies plurality. It was a single 'corn of wheat' that fell into the ground in the crucifixion and entombment of Christ (John 12.24); it was a sheaf which came forth in resurrection."[4] Commenting on this same passage, Warren Wiersbe affirms that "Jesus compared His death and burial to the planting of a seed (John 12:23-24)".[5]

So let's return to the question at hand, "Does John's Gospel present Jesus' burial as the fulfillment of Scripture"? It certainly does! To say otherwise is to impugn the very nature of Christ as "the Word" of God! Because Jesus Himself predicted His burial in John's Gospel! (See Jn. 12:7.) Furthermore, Christ pointed out that "the Scriptures...bear witness of Me" (Jn. 5:39). In regards to Christ's burial this would include Scriptures such as, for example, Isaiah 53:9 and Jonah 1:17. Christ also said that Moses "wrote of Me" (Jn. 6:46). In regards to Christ's burial this would include quotations from the Pentateuch such as Deuteronomy 21:23: which is a clear Old Testament reference to Christ's death "on the tree" and His ensuing burial, for the text says: "you shall surely bury him" (v. 23). And then there is Jesus' own statement in John 12:24, where He likens Himself to a seed that falls "into the ground" (εἰς τὴν γῆν) but then springs up "out of the ground" (cf. Psa. 85:11, ἐκ τῆς γῆς in the LXX) in order to bear much fruit: clearly picturing His death, burial, and resurrection! Have you believed this Good News? If not, do so today!

 

References:

[1] Thomas L. Stegall, That You May Believe: The Evangelistic Purpose and Message of John's Gospel in Relation to Free Grace Theology (ThD thesis, Grace Biblical Seminary, 2017), p. 232.

[2] The words of Jesus are Scripture! Both the Bible itself and early church history testifies to this fact. An example of the words of Jesus being called Scripture is seen by comparing Luke 10:7 with 1 Timothy 5:18. Notice that in Luke 10:7 Jesus says that "the laborer is worthy of his wages." Gregg F. Swift explains the point well when he says, "this part of the verse is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. But in 1 Timothy 5 Paul refers to this part of the verse, 'The laborer is worthy of his wages' as Scripture." (Swift, "Is the New Testament Considered 'Scripture'?" Christian Beliefs 101 website, July 11, 2021.) Commenting on the statement of Jesus in Luke 10:7 that "the laborer is worthy of his wage" (10:7b), theologian Charles Ellicott writes the following in his commentary on the passage: "The exact reproduction of the words by St. Paul in 1 Timothy 5:18, as a citation from 'the Scripture,' is every way interesting. The Apostle could scarcely have failed to have become acquainted, during his long companionship with St. Luke, with the materials which the Evangelist was collecting for his great work. We can hardly doubt, accordingly, that he quotes this as one of the sayings of the Lord Jesus, as he quotes another in Acts 20:35, and clothes it with the same authority as the older Scripture." (Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers, commentary on Luke 10:7, emphasis added.) Commenting on Luke 10:7, New Testament scholar A. T. Robertson affirms: "For the labourer is worthy of his hire (αξιος γαρ ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου). In Matthew 10:10 we have της τροφης αυτου (his food). 1 Timothy 5:18 has this saying quoted as scripture." (Robertson's Word Pictures, commentary on Luke 10:7.) Furthermore, in The Epistle of Barnabas (a non-canonical Christian letter written sometime between 70 and 132 A.D.), the words of Jesus from Matthew 22:14 are referred to as Scripture. Barnabas 4:14 says: "Moreover understand this also, my brothers. When ye see that after so many signs and wonders wrought in Israel, even then they were abandoned, let us give heed, lest haply we be found, as the scripture saith, many are called but few are chosen."  (The Epistle of Barnabas. Translated by J. B. Lightfoot. Early Christian Writings website.) There is also an ancient Christian homily known as II Clement (written to the Corinthians circa 150 A.D.), in which the author quotes the words of Jesus from Luke 5:32 and likewise calls it Scripture: "Again another scripture saith, I came not to call the righteous." (Second Clement. Translated by J. B. Lightfoot. Early Christian Writings website.) From these pertinent examples from both the Bible and early church history, it's clear that the words of Jesus are indeed to be considered Scripture!

[3] Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2009), p. 586.

[4] C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), p. 1042.

[5] Warren Wiersbe, Be Holy (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 1994), p. 128.

Bob Wilkin Disproves Zane Hodges' "Deserted Island Scenario"

I just read a very revealing statement by Bob Wilkin that really surprised me. In a blog post last year, Wilkin said: “I talked with Mike Lii [another promoter of the GES gospel] during a ten-mile walk on Saturday, and he made an interesting point. He said that most hypothetical questions are not based on the questioner’s actual experience. For example, ‘If someone believes in a frog named Jesus for everlasting life, is he born again?’ Well, there is no actual example like that. ‘If someone believes that Jesús, his gardener, guarantees his eternal destiny, is he saved?’ Again, there is no such person.”[1]

Wilkin is dismissing the logical conclusions of his false teaching by saying, in effect, “Well, there are no such examples of anyone believing in the wrong Jesus (e.g. Jesus the frog, or Jesús the gardener) for everlasting life, so my promise-only gospel is okay. People are believing in the right Jesus.” Really? Besides being an argument from silence, that’s like me saying that there are no actual examples of someone who “has never heard about Christianity in his life”[2] being shipwrecked on a deserted island and believing in the promise of John 6:47 without any other information about who that person is or what he did to provide it. Yet according to Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin, such a person is nonetheless saved! Wilkin doesn’t have a problem with that hypothetical scenario! In fact, he promotes it![3]

 

In other words, using Wilkin’s logic of dismissing any hypothetical scenarios for which there are no actual examples of it happening in real life, he would have to admit that the “strange scenario”[4] presented by Zane Hodges is similarly unpersuasive and wrong! But of course Wilkin would never do this because his entire ministry is built on exactly this premise: that someone “who has never heard about Christianity in his life” (so says Zane Hodges) could in fact find a scrap of paper containing parts of John 6:43 and 6:47, and with no other knowledge about who Jesus actuality is, as long as the person believes the promise of John 6:47, they are therefore saved according to Wilkin. But that’s not what the Bible teaches. And the logical conclusions of Wilkin’s false teaching prove it: because using Wilkin’s logic, if he were consistent, he would have to admit that someone could in fact think that “Jesus” is a frog, or Jesús the Mexican gardener, or even “Jesus who is called Justus” (Col. 4:11), and thus believe in the wrong “Jesus” for eternal life![5] And yet still be saved because they “believed the promise”! This is the tragedy of the promise-only gospel.

 

 

References:

 

[1] Bob Wilkin, “Must Assurance of Salvation Be Based on Jesus’ Promise?” (GES blog, June 8, 2023). Note: Although Wilkin is quoting Mike Lii, it's obvious that Wilkin agrees with both the premise of the statement and the statement itself.

 

[2] Zane Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Autumn 2000): 4.

 

[3] Besides the obvious fact that Wilkin promotes virtually everything Hodges taught, see particularly Wilkin’s article titled: “Another Look at the Deserted Island Illustration,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 2013): 3-20. In discussing the “STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE ILLUSTRATION” (p. 6ff), Wilkin says: “While I appreciate the concerns of those who disagree, I do not believe these weaknesses are fatal to Hodges’ point, especially when read in the context of the entirety of the two articles. The four strengths of the illustration are much more significant.” (Ibid., p. 7, emphasis added.) Also note that although Wilkin says: “Hodges...explicitly goes on to deny that there is enough information there for a person to believe in Jesus for everlasting life” (p. 6), this is inaccurate. Wilkin here is either being intellectually dishonest or intentionally misleading (or maybe he’s just confused): because Zane Hodges made it clear that in his view, there was enough information there for a person to get saved! In a follow-up article titled “The Spirit of Antichrist: Decoupling Jesus from the Christ,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Autumn 2007), Hodges wrote the following under the heading “BACK TO THE DESERTED ISLAND” (p. 41): “Several years ago I created a deserted island scenario that some of you may remember. The man who is marooned on that island gets a fragment of the Gospel of John that has washed up on the beach. That fragment contains the opening words of John 6:43, ‘Jesus therefore answered and said to them’ and everything is unreadable until we reach the words of John 6:47, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.’ My question was, ‘Is that enough information for the man to get saved?’ My answer, of course, was ‘yes.’” (Ibid., p. 41.)

[4] Zane Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Autumn 2000): 4.

 

[5] Zane Hodges goes so far as to say: “Everyone who believes in that name [i.e. “Jesus”] for eternal salvation is saved, regardless of the blank spots or the flaws in their theology in other respects. Another way of saying the same thing is this: No one has ever trusted that name and been disappointed.” (Hodges, “How To Lead People to Christ, Part 1” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society [Autumn 2000]: 9, brackets added.) Interestingly, the following testimony was given by a man who attended a GES conference back in the early 2000s. This is what the man said: “A few years ago, I attended a confernce [sic] where Bob Wilkin brought Mr. Hodges marooned man [i.e. deserted island] scenario. I asked him, what if this man thinks Jesus is a frog? Is he saved? The answer was ‘yes’. I guess Kermit Saves. Croak!” (See the comment by pykesplace1 from April 30, 2006, under the blog post by John Malone titled "Zane Hodges goes too far.") For the record, Bob Wilkin denies ever having said this. Yet such a statement is consistent with the GES "gospel".

Is Scofield's view of Revelation 2-3 "thoroughly implausible"?

Some years ago Daniel B. Wallace wrote a blog post for the Parchment and Pen blog titled "Inviting Jesus into your Heart," to which someone named John left the following comment: "The Book of Revelation Chapters 2 & 3 deal with the church ages, from the time of Paul, the angel (messenger) to Ephesus (dealing with the Gentile Christian Eras) to our Age (Laodicea)."[1]

It's important to point out that John's view of Revelation chapters 2-3 is essentially the view set forth by Dr. C. I. Scofield in his Scofield Reference Bible. But notice how Wallace responds; he quickly brushes John's view aside (as if it had no credibility) by saying: "John, the church age view [i.e. the dispensational view] of Revelation 2-3 is certainly a minority view among [modern-day] exegetes. I am aware of only one professor who actually holds to it. One of the biggest problems with it is simply that no matter how people have tried to construct church history, the seven ages never seem to fit. [Editor's note: They actually fit perfectly for those who "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15, KJV)!] They have to procrusteanize ["to stretch or contract according to some rule or standard"] these chapters into church history! Another major problem is that this view would be meaningless to anyone in the first century – in fact, meaningless to anyone until the 'Laodicean' age. I would have to reject it as thoroughly implausible."[2]

I responded to Wallace's comment with one of my own, in which I wrote the following: Just a thought on Dr. Wallace's previous comment (from 09-27-10), Dr. Scofield in his Reference Bible (and elsewhere) teaches that Revelation chapters 2-3 does indeed outline church history. Of course, all the editors of the Scofield Reference Bible would agree, no doubt. So right there, we have more than a handful of respected and reputable Bible "professors" who hold to that view (the view that Wallace is critiquing). Wallace may have been referring to the present-day, but if that is true then it might actually highlight a doctrinal shift over the past century away from the truth of God's Word: thus in effect providing a real-life example of the Laodicean church that is spoken about in Revelation chapter 3, and therefore supporting Scofield's church history view of Revelation 2-3! But more than this, it is not accurate to say that a "major problem is that this view [i.e. Scofield's view of Revelation chapters 2-3] would be meaningless to anyone in the first century – in fact, meaningless to anyone until the 'Laodicean' age." (So says Wallace.) But how would it be meaningless? Does Wallace think that unfulfilled prophecy (which is exactly what most of Revelation chapters 2-3 would be to anyone in the first century) is meaningless until it is fulfilled? That would be like saying that all the (yet unfulfilled) prophetic portions of Revelation are meaningless to us! Which of course is absurd! Who would ever say such a thing? Yet this is Wallace's reasoning in regards to Revelation chapters 2-3, when it comes to Scofield's view of it. But it should be obvious that just because a prophecy is unfulfilled, doesn't mean it's meaningless. That would be like saying the Second Coming of Christ is meaningless, because it hasn't happened yet. But of course as Bible-believing Christians, we don't say that. Yet this is Wallace's reasoning in regards to "the church age view of Revelation 2-3" to those living in the first century. It is actually Wallace's view of Revelation chapters 2-3 that I find "thoroughly implausible"! Furthermore, this leads to the obvious question: is something in the Bible untrue simply because people don't understand it? By no means! For example, Jesus said: "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given" (Matt. 13:11; cf. Lk. 8:10). Another example is when the Bible says of the disciples, that "as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead" (Jn. 20:9). Was the resurrection of Christ untrue because it was a prophecy that people did not yet understand? Of course not.

Wallace's view is the typical Calvinistic/Reformed viewpoint, but the church history view of Revelation 2-3 (i.e. the dispensational view) is wonderfully set forth by Dr. J. Vernon McGee in his commentary on the passage. McGee writes the following succinct summary: “These seven letters [in Revelation chapters 2-3] have a threefold interpretation and application: 

1. Contemporary—they had a direct message to the local churches of John’s day. I intend to take you to the location of these seven churches in these next two chapters. I have visited the sites of these churches several times, and I want to visit them again and again, because it is such a thrill and because it brings me closer to the Bible. You can get closer to the bible by visiting these seven churches than you can by walking through the land of Israel. The ruins have an obvious message. John was writing to churches that he knew all about. In The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia Sir William Ramsay said, ‘The man who wrote these seven letters to the seven churches had been there, and he knew the local conditions.’ 

2. Composite—each one is a composite picture of the church. There is something that is applicable to all churches in all ages in each message to each individual church. In other words, when you read the message to the church in Pergamum, there is a message for your church and a message for you personally. 

3. Chronological—the panoramic history of the church is given in these seven letters, from Pentecost to the Parousia, from the Upper Room to the upper air. There are seven distinct periods of church history. Ephesus represents the apostolic church; Laodicea represents the apostate church. This prophetic picture is largely fulfilled and is now church history, which makes these chapters extremely remarkable.”[3]

 

References:

[1] John, comment dated "2010-09-27," under the post "Inviting Jesus into your Heart," Parchment and Pen blog.

[2] Daniel B. Wallace, comment dated "2010-09-27," under the post "Inviting Jesus into your Heart," Parchment and Pen blog.

[3] J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible, vol. 5: 1 Corinthians—Revelation, p. 898. See under the heading: "INTRODUCTION TO CHAPTERS 2 AND 3".

Getting the Gospel Right, Pt. 6

In Distinction to Tom Stegall

and the Groundless Gospel 

* * *

 

In this article I would like to specifically respond to Pastor Tom Stegall’s “Proposed Change”[1] that he handed out to his church congregation—Word of Grace Bible Church—in 2007. (Stegall has since left Word of Grace Bible Church and is now Senior Pastor at Duluth Bible Church in Duluth, Minnesota.) The “Proposed Change” was probably an overreaction to the “crossless gospel” (although actually following in their footsteps!): Stegall felt the need to make “several slight changes” to his church’s doctrinal statement on the “SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION” (i.e. “the gospel”), one of which was to specifically remove the fact that Christ “was buried” (see 1 Cor. 15:4). Interestingly, in reading through Stegall’s “Proposed Change”, it’s very telling that the word “change” is repeated eight times in the short (less than 1 page) document! Yet Stegall attempts to reassure his readers that it is only a “slight change”, as if changing “the gospel” is nothing to be concerned about! Stegall’s entire “Proposed Change” can be read online here. But the part that I specifically want to comment on is when Stegall says: “The death and resurrection of Christ are the two key events/works repeatedly emphasized throughout Scripture as an inseparable couplet necessary for salvation, not His burial. (Matt. 16:20-21, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mark 8:29-31, 9:30-32, 10:32-34; Luke 18:31-34, 24:7, 26, 46; Acts 2:23-24, 3:15, 4:10, 5:30, 10:39-40, 17:3, 25:19, 26:23; Rom. 4:24-25; Gal. 1:1-4; 1 Pt. 1:18-21; 1 Th. 4:14)”[2]
 

Stegall’s “Proposed Change” leads to the obvious question: Does the Gospel Need an Update?[3] Let’s take a closer look! What I noticed is that Stegall’s proof-texts are highly selective in order to make it appear that Christ’s burial is unnecessary for salvation, and the only necessary components to believe are His “death and resurrection”. Yet ironically, many of the proof-texts are not specific to Christ’s “death and resurrection”, but actually include other truths of the gospel as well! The following analysis is provided for those “who have eyes to see and ears to hear”:

1. Stegall’s statement makes no reference to the necessity of believing that Christ rose from the dead specifically “on the third day” (1 Cor. 15:4), even though many of the proof-texts he listed clearly set forth this important gospel truth (see Mt. 16:20-21, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mk. 8:29-31, 9:30-32, 10:32-34; Lk. 18:31-34, 24:7, 46; Acts 10:39-40). In fact, if we are strictly concerned with what is “emphasized throughout Scripture” (according to Stegall’s highly selective list of texts, of course), the proof-texts themselves show that Christ’s resurrection on the third day is clearly emphasized far more than the substitutionary aspect of His death – which is only mentioned three times in all the proof-texts combined! Yet Stegall does not require the reference to “the third day” to be believed as part of the gospel according to him, as he does the substitutionary aspect of Christ’s death.

2. Stegall omits any reference to Matthew 12:39-40 even though this text is a pivotal prophecy of Christ that highlights His death and resurrection on the third day. No doubt Stegall omits this text because although Christ foretells His death and resurrection, there is also a clear emphasis on His burial. Free Grace theologian Roy B. Zuck affirms: “Jonah’s three days and three nights in the fish’s stomach illustrates Christ’s burial.”[4] Even Tom Stegall acknowledges that the sign of Jonah the prophet has reference to the burial of Christ. Stegall says that “God prophetically and typologically ordained that Christ should be in the tomb for ‘three days and three nights’ (Jonah 1:17; Matt. 12:40; 26:61; 27:40, 63)”.[5]

3. Stegall omits any reference to the climactic passion narratives of the Gospels, all of which clearly describe Christ’s burial (Mt. 27:57-66; Mk. 15:42-47; Lk. 23:50-56; Jn. 19:31-42). Note: This point deals with four more texts that Stegall selectively omits from his list of Bible verses!

4. Stegall omits any reference to Matthew 28:1-10. Because although the passage mentions the death and resurrection of Christ, the text also draws attention to Christ’s burial (and resurrection appearances). Christ’s burial is clearly described, and thus His resurrection from the dead is more specifically a resurrection from the grave or from the ground! This resurrection to life specifically from the ground is according to the Scriptures (cf. Gen. 1:11-13; Gen. 3:19; Psa. 22:15, Psa. 40:2, Psa. 85:11; Isa. 26:19, Isa. 53:9; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 27:52-53; Jn. 5:28, 12:23-24; 1 Cor. 15:20).

5. Stegall omits any mention of Mark 16:5-7, because although the passage references the death and resurrection of Christ, the text also draws specific attention to His burial (and His resurrection appearance to Peter and the disciples).

6. Stegall omits any reference to Luke 24:26, because although the text highlights Christ’s death and resurrection, the passage also draws attention to the fact of Christ’s burial (vv. 22-24), and that it was prophesied in the Old Testament and is according to the Scriptures (see vv. 19-27)! Interestingly, the passage in Luke 24 also clearly highlights a resurrection appearance of Christ to certain of His disciples on the road to Emmaus (see vv. 13-35), not to mention another resurrection appearance to His more intimate group of disciples in vv. 36-49.

7. Stegall omits any mention of John 2:19-22, because although the passage makes reference to Christ’s death and resurrection on the third day, it also makes reference to Christ’s appearances to His disciples after His resurrection. Since Stegall is trying to make a case against believing in Christ’s burial in the gospel (and by extension also against believing in His resurrection appearances), this passage is omitted from his list of proof-texts.

8. Stegall omits any mention of John 20:19-21:14, because although Jesus points to His death and resurrection, His resurrection is said to be from the “tomb” (Jn. 20:1-9), and the passage also highlights the Savior’s resurrection appearances to His disciples three times (Jn. 20:19, 20:26, 21:1, 14). This is a key passage of Scripture, and it is in this section that we find the purpose for which John wrote his Gospel (see Jn. 20:30-31). It’s very revealing that in Stegall’s highly selective list of proof-texts, there is no mention of John 20:30-31, nor any reference from the Gospel of John! The truth is, these key sections from John’s Gospel do not support Stegall’s groundless gospel. Rather, they argue strongly against it.

9. Stegall omits any reference to Acts 1:1-3, because although the passage highlights Christ’s death and resurrection, the text also plainly emphasizes Christ’s resurrection appearances to His disciples when it says: “to these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering” (v. 3).

10. Stegall cites Acts 2:23-24 but completely omits the remainder of Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:25-36! This is no doubt because the apostle proclaims the importance of Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances.

11. Stegall cites Acts 3:15 but omits any mention of Christ’s resurrection appearances spoken of in the same verse! Furthermore, according to the Scriptures, Christ's resurrection from the dead was a resurrection from the ground, as previously explained (see #4).

12. Stegall mentions Acts 5:30 but fails to cite the remainder of Peter’s sermon in Acts 5:31-32, which clearly describes the resurrection appearances of Christ.

13. Stegall cites Acts 10:39-40 but omits any mention of Christ’s resurrection appearances spoken of in the same passage (vv. 40-41).

14. Stegall omits any reference to Acts 13:28-31 (even though Stegall has said elsewhere that this is Paul’s gospel to the Galatians!), because in this passage the apostle Paul not only proclaims Christ’s death and resurrection, but also His burial and resurrection appearances![6] 

15. Stegall omits any reference to Romans 6:3-4 even though he has stated elsewhere that this text is a picture of the gospel! Concerning this, Stegall says that “water baptism pictures believers’ identification with the person of Christ, [and] it also pictures the spiritual reality of our identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection....It signifies the believer’s spiritual identification with Christ in His person and work [i.e. His death, burial, and resurrection]. It is a picture of the Gospel!”[7] Stegall omits Romans 6:3-4 from his list of proof-texts because this key passage highlights not only Christ’s death and resurrection, but also His burial and walking in newness of life (i.e. His resurrection appearances). Stegall omits this passage even though it pictures “the Gospel” and includes Christ’s death and resurrection! The problem for Stegall, of course, is that the passage also includes Christ’s burial.

16. Stegall omits any reference to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (or more specifically 15:1-5), even though this passage is “of first importance” regarding salvation and even highlights Christ’s death and resurrection. Again, the problem for Stegall is that this passage also includes Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances and therefore does not support his reductionist reasoning.

17. Stegall omits any reference to Colossians 2:12, because while this verse mentions Christ’s death and resurrection, it also mentions His burial.

18. Stegall never mentions 2 Timothy 2:8, because although Paul reminds his readers of Christ’s resurrection from the dead, he adds that this truth is “according to my gospel”, not in place of it!

19. Stegall also makes no reference to key Old Testament Scriptures that describe Christ’s death and resurrection such as Isaiah 53, because this passage also clearly includes a reference to Christ’s burial (Isa. 53:9) and resurrection appearance to His disciples: “He shall see His followers” (Isa. 53:10, Berkley Version; cf. 1 Cor. 15:5, NASB: “He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve”).

20. Stegall also fails to mention Psalm 22, which in addition to highlighting Christ’s death and resurrection, also clearly includes His burial (22:15) and resurrection appearances (22:22; cf. Jn. 20:17; Heb. 2:9-12).

21. Stegall also omits Psalm 40 from his highly-selective list of proof-texts, because although Psalm 40 is a Messianic Psalm highlighting Christ’s cries from the cross (v. 1) and His resurrection (v. 2), the text also plainly includes a reference to His burial (v. 2) and His appearance after resurrection (v. 3; cf. 1 Cor. 15:5, KJV: “He was seen”).

To summarize: Christ’s death and resurrection are emphasized in the gospel, but it does not follow that Christ’s burial is excluded. If Stegall really wants to “make believing ‘the gospel’ more explicit as a requirement for salvation”[8], it is striking that none of his proof-texts even mention “the gospel”! Corresponding to this, if Stegall really wants to “make believing ‘the gospel’ more explicit”[9], why doesn’t he include 1 Corinthians 15:1ff in his list of proof-texts? (This is the passage where Paul begins in verse 1 by saying, “Brethren, I make known to you ‘the gospel’”!) The obvious answer of course (as I mentioned above), is that in this passage the apostle Paul also clearly includes Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances, truths which Stegall contends are not part of “the gospel”.

It’s clear that Stegall has an agenda to push and has set out to find Scriptures to support his theological perspective. Although at first glance Stegall’s premise may appear to be solidly supported by Scripture, upon further examination his statement is seen to be groundless and a gross distortion of the Scriptural truth.

References:

[1] Tom Stegall, “Proposed Change” to the Word of Grace Bible Church’s doctrinal statement on the “SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION” (2007).

[2] Ibid.

[3] See my article: “Does the Gospel Need an Update?” (FGFS, May 3, 2011).

 

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

 

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

[6] For more information see my article: “Is Tom Stegall’s Gospel the Traditional Free grace Gospel?” (FGFS, March 10, 2012), and also my article titled: “What Gospel Did Paul Preach to the Galatians?” (FGFS, June 29, 2018).

[7] Tom Stegall, “The Tragedy Of The Crossless Gospel, Part 5,” Grace Family Journal (Special Edition, 2007): p. 27, italics and underlining his, ellipsis and brackets added. Also see: Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 147; cf. Dennis Rokser, 7 Key Questions about Water Baptism, p. 23. 

 

[8] Tom Stegall, “Proposed Change” to the Word of Grace Bible Church’s doctrinal statement on the “SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION” (2007).

 

[9] Ibid.

"None In Hell!"

 

"NONE IN HELL!"

by William Norton

"Tracts everywhere!" said a youth with a sneer, as a young Christian lad handed him a leaflet one Lord's Day afternoon.

"No," said the lad quietly, "there will be none in hell," and passed on.

God fastened that single sentence as a nail in a sure place and he could not get rid of it—"None in hell!" seemed to echo in his ears every time he saw a tract, and ultimately he was converted.

Reader, there will be "None in hell!" Neither gospel invitation nor gospel entreaties.

How earnestly the lost multitudes, in the hopeless region of despair, would welcome the first invitation of mercy; but their day is past, their time of grace is over. Of these there is "None in hell!" How are you treating them on earth?

These golden opportunities, solemn warnings—these loving invitations of God, as (John 3:16): "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Accept them, speedily; for, remember, there will be "None in hell." Prov. 1:24-28.

 

______________

Source: William Norton, Editor, excerpted from "The Gospel in Print," Moody Bible Institute Monthly, vol. 21 (February 1921): p. 295.

"All The Stones In Stonyford" | by Lance B. Latham

Do people have to turn from their sins in order to be saved? This is what some people teach, but the Bible says that "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Rom. 3:20). The following true story illustrates this truth and is excerpted from the book The Two Gospels, by Lance B. Latham.¹

"All The Stones In Stonyford"

"The message of the gospel of the grace of God, over the years, has stood the test. When one considers a given message or ministry, he has the right to ascertain if it has produced results. One of the great delights of my life is to witness the life-changing power of the message of the gospel of the grace of God and the results that it has produced over the years.

For the past 40 years, I have had the privilege of being associated with the New Tribes Mission. This association began at their very inception, and has continued blessedly down through more than four exciting decades. The very first committee held its first meeting at our Camp Mishawana in Michigan. New Tribes Mission today has over 2000 missionaries in the field and in the homeland who are true to the gospel of grace.

Very shortly after the founding of the mission, a camp for training missionaries was founded at Fouts Springs near Stonyford, California.

Three brothers came with different backgrounds and seemed disturbed by our teaching. They believed in the shed blood of the Son of God as God's payment for sin and that Jesus was truly God's son and God. However, they believed that they had to deny themselves to be sure of their salvation.

We all worked physically on the grounds a few hours everyday. A real job had been undertaken by the mission at our 'boot camp' in Fouts Springs. There were about 300 people on the grounds and among them many children. The necessity of a school became very evident. Preparing the ground, a mass of stones, sand and clay, involved removing many rocks of all sizes.

One brother saw the truth of Scripture in that task. 'Doc, to move all the sins out of our lives before we get saved would be harder than getting all the stones out of Stonyford!' Many people try to do things that are absolutely impossible. We could confess and remove sins to the day of our death, yet never reach a standard of perfection that a Holy God could accept.

The burden of the brothers' conviction that they must add something to Calvary as the payment of sin was gone. The penances, the self-castigation, the fastings to ease their consciences disappeared. Instead, they became intensely interested in their Bibles, and spent hours and hours delighting themselves in the Word of God.

They became missionaries to Japan, rather they became citizens of Japan. They took no furloughs, so as the years went by their support began to diminish.

The Lord eventually opened up the opportunity for them to start a Japanese-English School, and an orphanage. The revenue became enough to take care of all their needs.

Now they send missionaries to other countries. A great work, started from observing the similarity of eliminating all the stones from a stream and trying to get all the sins out of a life. 'Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified' (Rom. 3:20)."²

 

References:

¹ Lance B. Latham, The Two Gospels (Rolling Meadows, IL: Awana Youth Association, 1984).

² Ibid., pp. 62-64, emphasis his. See under the heading: "All The Stones In Stonyford".

Are You a Slave to King Sin? Another Look at Romans 8:1

What is the context of Romans 8:1: justification or sanctification? People often think of Romans 8:1 in reference to eternal condemnation, and while it is certainly true that believers “in Christ” will not be eternally condemned, is this the best understanding of the condemnation that the apostle Paul is referring to in the context of Romans chapter 8? A Free Grace understanding of Romans 8:1 is here explained.

To begin, I’d like to simply quote my New Tribes Bible Institute class notes on the verse(s) as it provides commentary and illustrations that I believe will be helpful:

ROMANS 8:1
“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Rom. 8:1, KJV)

 

“no condemnation”: emphatic
“condemnation”: Greek katakrima (cf. Rom. 5:16, 18)
 

What does “no condemnation” mean?
 

A.) No white throne judgment (Jn. 5:24)? This is true, but katakrima doesn’t refer to this here in Romans 8:1.
 

B.) No bad feelings (guilt, shame, etc.)? No, because if a Christian is living carnally, it’s okay to feel bad about it. Christ wants you to get back on your feet (cf. 1 Cor. 15:34-36; Jms. 4:4, 6-10).
 

C.) No disapproval of God? This isn’t the meaning of katakrima in Romans 8:1 either. The wretched man as a Christian is accepted by God in Christ, but the man’s behavior isn’t (Rom. 4:8; 1 Cor. 1:30, 3:1-4, 5:5; 2 Cor. 5:21; Eph. 1:6). Christians may face God’s disapproval (katakrima, to judge against) at the judgment seat of Christ (Jms. 5:9, in the Received Text).
 

D.) It signifies the condemnatory sentence handed down by a judge for a crime, i.e. slavery: the sentence of absolute bondage to king Sin and the resulting death (talking experientially, i.e. in the believer’s experience). The bitter cycle of sin, defeat, despair. The “Slough of Despond” / mirky quicksand / bondage in The Pilgrim’s Progress that Christian becomes caught in. This is the sense of katakrima / “condemnation” that is meant in Romans 8:1.
 

“in Christ Jesus”: the believer’s position, forever joined to my Lord

-no slavery to sin (i.e. no “penal servitude”, see F. F. Bruce, Romans, p. 159) for those who are in Christ Jesus!

-who gets out of the Slough of Despond experientially? Those who appropriate the positional truth of who they are in Christ, i.e. in their daily walk. See Romans 7:22, 25.

-The second part of Romans 8:1 is taken out in some Bibles, but is retained in the KJV and NKJV. This second part reads: “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

-The second clause in Romans 8:1 makes sense if you look at condemnation not as the white throne judgment but as the sentence of bondage to sin in my experience / walk.
-The second clause of Romans 8:1 is the key to experiencing victory (cf. Gal. 5:16) and its truth is affirmed in Romans 8:4.
-The clause is conditional, i.e. only when I appropriate my position in Christ can I have practical victory. Practical victory depends on laying hold of my position (in Christ) by faith and practically appropriating the life of Christ in my daily walk.
-practical victory: lay hold of my position (in Christ) by faith and practically appropriate the very life of Christ; i.e. “walk after the Spirit”
“walk”: walk about
“after”: according to, under the power and control of the Spirit of God; walk in dependence on the power of and under the governmental control of the Spirit
 

4 Parts of Appropriation (cf. Romans chapters 6-7):

1. know (meditate, memorize)

2. reckon (agree with God these things are so)

3. yield (one time act I make early on, but a continuing mindset)

4. walk

 

ROMANS 8:2

“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Rom. 8:2, KJV)

 

“law”: a principle by which I now operate
“the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus”: my deliverance is thru the power and control of the Holy Spirit who reproduces Christ’s life in me as I depend on Him and trust Him to do so.
-the law of the Spirit overrides the law of sin and death (just like the law of aerodynamics in a plane overrides the law of gravity)
“set me free”: experiential freedom; made real in my experience
 

ROMANS 8:3
“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:” (Rom. 8:3, KJV)

 

Christ came and died . . .
1. “for sin”: substitution (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3)
2. “in the likeness of sinful flesh”: identification (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21)
 

-Christ accomplished our sanctification
“He condemned sin in the flesh”

“condemned” (Greek katakrino): to put an end to a criminal’s power to injure or do harm, to deprive sin of its power in the human nature
 

-Illustration 1: We are billionaires who move into a condemned building (our body controlled by the sin nature). We don’t have to, it’s dangerous, dingy, etc.
 

-Illustration 2: When king Sin shows up at the workshop we say, “I’m sorry but there’s a new owner here now (Christ). You deal with Him now.” And you step out of the conversation. When king Sin sees the new owner (Christ), he flees!
-means of righteousness: not I, but Christ (Gal. 2:20)
 

This interpretation of Romans 8:1 is consistent with Lewis Sperry Chafer’s basic outline of the book in which he writes that Romans 6:1—8:17 concerns “salvation for the believer from the power of sin, or unto sanctification” (Systematic Theology, 3:340).

Believing, But Not Understanding

Bob Wilkin says that in order for a lost person to be saved, they must interpret the phrase “eternal life” to mean specifically “eternal security”.[1] This is the correct interpretation and understanding of “eternal life” according to Bob Wilkin. But besides the fact that he is turning the result of saving faith into the required content of that faith, there is another glaring problem with Wilkin’s reasoning. As Lewis Sperry Chafer has said, “The man who refuses to believe anything that he does not understand will have a very short creed”![2] Wilkin’s attitude in regards to understanding eternal security up front for salvation reminds me of the three young men in the following story, which illustrates the point well:

“‘I will not believe anything but what I understand,’ said a self-confident young man in a hotel one day.
‘Nor will I,’ said another.
‘Neither will I,’ chimed in a third.
‘Gentlemen,’ said one well known to me, who was on a journey, and who sat close by, ‘do I understand you correctly, that you will not believe anything that you don’t understand?’
‘I will not,’ said one, and so said each one of the trio.
‘Well,’ said the stranger, “in my ride this morning I saw some geese in a field eating grass; do you believe that?’
‘Certainly,’ said the three unbelievers.
‘I also saw the pigs eating grass; do you believe that?’
‘Of course,’ said the three.
‘And I also saw sheep and cows eating grass; do you believe that?’
‘Of course,’ was again replied.
‘Well, but the grass which they had formerly eaten, had, by digestion, turned to feathers on the backs of geese, to bristles on the backs of swine, to wool on the sheep, and on the cows it had turned to hair; do you believe that, gentlemen?’
‘Certainly,’ they replied.
‘Yes, you believe it,’ he rejoined, ‘BUT DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT?’
They were confounded and silent, and evidently ashamed, as they well might be.”[3]

A lost person can believe the words of Jesus that “whosoever believes in Me should not perish, but have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16) without fully understanding the concept of “eternal life”, much less interpreting it as specifically “eternal security”! If a man is drowning and I throw him a life raft, assuring him that I will pull him to safety if he grabs hold of it, must the drowning person understand the intricacies of the life raft’s design and how it floats, or does he simply trust the person to save him? Wilkin is essentially making understanding the life raft a requirement to be saved, when Jesus says rather to simply “believe in HIM” – that is, to simply believe in His person and work!

 

 

ENDNOTES:

 

[1] See the Grace Evangelical Society’s “Affirmations of Belief” web page under the heading “What We Believe – Fuller Statement”, where it says under the sub-heading “Assurance of Salvation”: “Assurance is of the essence of saving faith. That is, if a person has never been sure that he personally is eternally secure by faith alone, then he has never been regenerated. Assurance is always present at the moment of saving faith, though it is possible that a Christian may later doubt his salvation.” (“Affirmations of Belief,” emphasis added. https://faithalone.org/beliefs/) Note: Bob Wilkin is the founder and Execute Director of the Grace Evangelical Society.

 

[2] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1947), vol. 1, p. 75.

 

[3] “Believing, But Not Understanding,” Good News, November 2, 1868, no page number. www.google.com/books/edition/Good_news/wBoFAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=&pg=PP321&printsec=frontcover (accessed January 4, 2023).

The GES vs. JESUS: "Believe in Him" or His Promise?

Must a lost person believe specifically in the promise of “eternal life” in order to get saved  (as the Grace Evangelical Society teaches), or is eternal life the result of believing in Christ? In passages such as John 3:14-17 for example, “eternal life” is the result of believing in Christ, not the required content of faith. So Bob Wilkin is twisting Scripture by turning the result of saving faith (i.e. “eternal life”) into the required content of saving faith.

 

To highlight the absurdity of Wilkin’s position, take a simple illustration based on John 3:16. Keep in mind that Wilkin is the one who teaches that all a lost person has to believe to be saved is snippets of text from the Gospel of John. So accordingly (using Wilkin’s logic and his slogan “Believe in Him for life”), if a lost person only hears the words “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever BELIEVES IN HIM should not perish...” (Jn. 3:16a), is that person saved or lost? (Notice that in the previous example the promise of “eternal life” is left out!) Based on Wilkin’s public statements, he would have to say that such a person could hear and believe that promise of Jesus and still be unsaved because the promise of specifically “eternal life” was missing! Yet Jesus nonetheless promised that whosoever “believes in Him” should “not perish”, i.e. would be saved!

So I’m just pointing out that the promise of “eternal life” is really not part of the content of the gospel message (even according to Wilkin if he were consistent with what he teaches) because if the promise of specifically “eternal life” was required to believe, then Jesus would be lying when he said that whoever BELIEVES IN HIM would “not perish”, because believing in Him is really not enough to save if believing in the promise of specifically “eternal life” is also required. Just a thought that I had pointing out the inconsistency of Wilkin’s position.

Charles Spurgeon has well said (and this may be applied to Wilkin's promise-only gospel): "Friends, I may surprise you by what I am about to say, but there is another fault into which we sometimes fall, namely, looking to God’s promises instead of looking to Christ as the propitiation of sin. The text [of Romans 3:25] does not say that God the Father hath set forth promises. Indeed he has given us exceeding great and precious promises, and they are true in Christ. We often err by going to promises instead of going to Christ....Oh, that we lived more on Christ and less on anything but Christ, nearer to Christ’s person, more surely resting on Christ’s blood [i.e. His death "for our sins according to the Scriptures," 1 Cor. 15:3; cf. Rom. 5:9-10], more simply accepting him as our all in all."[1]

 

Reference:

[1] C. H. Spurgeon, "Christ Set Forth as a Propitiation" (March 29, 1861), The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 7. Sermon on Romans 3:25.

The Hydra's Other Head: Theological Minimalism

Zane Hodges admits that Paul begins to enumerate the content of his gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3b, and that these items are “of first importance”.[1] However, Hodges extends the actual content of Paul’s gospel through 1 Corinthians 15:8 while offering no exegesis to support his claim. Hodges simply declares: “In 1 Cor 15:1-8 Paul is reminding the Christians about the content of his gospel.”[2] After merely quoting 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 Hodges concludes: “Clearly, for Paul, the term ‘gospel’ is broader than the essential content of saving faith.”[3] Such an obvious lack of exegesis is expected from first year seminary students, but not from a former professor of New Testament Greek and exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary! Hodges’ arguments are exegetically unconvincing. Let us now consider the question that Hodges is so reluctant to research: does the content of Paul’s gospel extend through 1 Corinthians 15:8? Where does the content of Paul’s gospel conclude? The content of Paul’s gospel concludes with the fourth and final hoti content clause in 1 Corinthians 15:5: “and that [kai hoti] He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” There is a grammatical break after 1 Corinthians 15:5 indicating the end of the gospel tradition. Famed New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias affirms: “[I]t can be proved linguistically that the kerygma (which includes verses 3b from Christos to 5 dōdeka [i.e. the ‘twelve’], as shown e.g. by the syntactic break at the beginning of verse 6) was not formulated by Paul. [...] Up to v. 5 there are hoti-clauses, from v. 6 onwards main clauses”.[4] F. Godet notes another exegetical point bearing on the subject when he states: “The epeita, thereafter [in 1 Cor. 15:6a], separates more forcibly than the eita, then, of ver. 5; it makes the following appearances [in 1 Cor. 15:6ff] a new step in the series, and rightly so.”[5] Even crossless gospel advocate John Niemelä affirms these exegetical truths. Under the heading “Indicating a Content Clause”, Niemelä notes that “1 Corinthians...15:3...15:4a-b, [and] 5” (but not 15:6ff) each indicate “a Content Clause”.[6] The words of Matt Myllykoski are appropriate: “Most scholars have regarded vv. 3b-5 as an old traditional unit.”[7] The apostle Paul confirms this gospel tradition by listing several more appearances of Christ in vv. 6-8. Ladd writes: “[The] tradition embodied in the apostolic kērygma or euaggelion. Paul delivered (paredōka) to the Corinthians the gospel that he also received (parelabon), that Christ died for our sins, that he was buried, that he rose on the third day, that he appeared to his disciples (1 Cor. 15:1-5). It is generally accepted that verses 3b-5 embody a primitive piece of pre-Pauline kerygma that Paul has received as a tradition from [Christ and] those who were apostles before him. [...] Probably the appearances mentioned in vv. 6-8 were added by Paul to the tradition he received.”[8] Zane Hodges has not even attempted to explain these exegetical truths that even fellow crossless gospel advocate John Niemelä affirms!

 

 

References:

 

[1] Zane Hodges, “The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism,” Grace In Focus (Sept/Oct 2008).

 

[2] Ibid.

 

[3] Ibid, italics his.

[4] Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955), 129, brackets added.

[5] Frederic Godet, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), 2:334, brackets added.

 

[6] John Niemelä, “For You Have Kept My Word: The Grammar of Revelation 3:10,” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 6 (January 2000): 29-30, ellipsis and brackets added.

 

[7] Matt Myllykoski; Ismo Dundererg, Christopher Tuckett, and Kari Syreeni, Editors, Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 66.

 

[8] George Eldon Ladd, Donald A. Hagner, Editor, A Theology of the New Testament, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1993), 427, brackets added. Cf. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1974), 388-389.