1 Corinthians 15:1-5 in The Living Bible

The Living Bible was written by Dr. Ken Taylor of Moody Bible Institute, during his hour-long train ride to and from downtown Chicago on his daily commute. Taylor wrote the paraphrase for his young daughter, so she could better understand the Bible. Here's how Taylor paraphrases 1 Corinthians 15:1-5:

“Now let me remind you, brothers, of what the Gospel really is, for it has not changed—it is the same Good News I preached to you before. You welcomed it then and still do now, for your faith is squarely built upon this wonderful message; and it is this Good News that saves you if you still firmly believe it, unless of course you never really believed it in the first place. I passed on to you right from the first what had been told to me, that Christ died for our sins just as the Scriptures said he would, and that he was buried, and that three days afterwards he arose from the grave just as the prophets foretold. He was seen by Peter and later by the rest of ‘the Twelve.’” 

Back To the Future

by Peter Hann

In the film "Back to the Future," Marty is accidently transported in a DeLorean converted time machine from 1985 to 1955. Just before Marty gets in the time machine to head back to the future, he tries to warn his friend Doc Brown of what's going to happen in 1985. Marty gives Doc a letter warning him that in 1985 he (Doc) will be shot by Libyan terrorists. Doc tears up the letter even though Marty tries to stop him. So Marty gets in the time machine and decides to give himself an extra ten minutes so he can come back shortly before the shooting to warn Doc of what's going to happen. Marty arrives back in 1985 but still too late—Doc has just been shot by the Libyan terrorists. As Marty mourns his friend's death, Doc suddenly awakens and reveals a bulletproof vest and the letter Marty gave him all taped up. Marty is flooded with joy to see Doc alive!

A spiritual application of this story is when we try to share the gospel of Christ with friends and family, and they blow it off or it appears to fall on deaf ears. But we want them to accept Christ because we know their eternity depends on it. Later on when that unbelieving loved one or family member accepts Christ or when we get to heaven and realize who did accept Him, we will be flooded with the same joy that Marty had!¹

ENDNOTE:

¹ It's sort of like when Jesus said that there will be more rejoicing over one sinner who repents than over the ninety-nine that need not repent (Lk. 15:7). It reminds me of when Jacob is informed that his son Joseph, whom he thought was dead, is found alive. Jacob is in shock and disbelief and is filled with joy when he went to Egypt during the famine to see his son and embrace him (Gen. 46:29-30).

Book Review: The Two Gospels | by Lance Latham

The author Lance B. Latham (1894-1985) was a strong proponent of Free Grace theology and one of the original founding members of New Tribes Mission (now Ethnos360). He was for many years the pastor of The Northside Gospel Center in Chicago, Illinois. He collaborated with Art Rorheim, the church's youth director, to develop weekly children's clubs. These clubs laid the foundation for the organization they co-founded in 1950, then known as the Awana Youth Association, and today as Awana Clubs International. Mr. Latham was affectionately known to his friends and colleagues simply as "Doc". For more information on Lance Latham's life and ministry, see the biography by Dave Breese titled Lance: A Testament of Grace.

I recently purchased Lance Latham's book The Two Gospels (Rolling Meadows, IL: Awana Youth Association, 1984), and read it with great eagerness and anticipation. Reading through the book made me feel as if I was back at New Tribes Bible Institute again. What a refreshing breath of Free Grace! In this short review, I'd like to highlight a few key thoughts from the book and share several excerpts. The first quote I'd like to share is in regards to how we are saved freely by God's grace. "Doc" Latham writes:

Believing on Christ is distinctly not "turning the direction of your life over to Him." It is looking in faith to our Saviour crucified for our sins on Calvary! It is not of works, devotion or full surrender. It is His work and His death that avails. 

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law (Rom. 3:28). 

Let Romans 3:24 sink into your heart: 

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 

This is solid ground; for "My hope is built on nothing less (or more) than Jesus' blood and righteousness." 

When the church lost this beautiful truth, it sank into backsliding and serious decadence. It still had buildings, crosses, candles and black robes, but was spiritually dead, devoid of the truth. The essence, therefore, of spiritual reality is not in the externals of religion, but rather in the internal reality of a sincere faith in the clear teaching of the Word of God. 

We are fast approaching (if we have not reached) the place in our present age where these distinctive truths found in the book of Romans and in the balance of New Testament Scripture must again be "rediscovered." Methods and approaches will not do . . . it is the message that counts!

The doctrine of justification by faith is so provocative that it creates a question for many. "Will not belief in the grace of God alone produce a licentious living on the part of the people?" "Perhaps the people of God will live presumptuous lives when they realize that they are saved by grace and not by works." 

We find the remarkable answer as we continue to consider the book of Romans. 

[. . .]

In reading Romans 3 and 4, the great central passage on our justification, we find no words about the necessity of reforming our lives or forsaking our sins in order to obtain that justification. "Turning away" from our sins is mentioned after the matter of our justification is fully settled. 

Paul asks the rhetorical question, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" (Rom. 6:1). 

As William P. Mackay writes in his book Grace and Truth: "Unless the gospel we preach, when presented to the natural mind, bring forth such a question, it is another Gospel than Paul's."¹

I love that statement by W. P. Mackay because he's basically saying that any gospel or system of theology that does not prompt a person to ask the question "Shall we continue in sin that grace might increase?" (implying that it is possible) is not biblical grace! The grace that Paul preached sounded dangerous enough to provoke the question.

Contrary to what some people think, the grace of God actually teaches Christians to "deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world" (Titus 2:12). The following true story illustrates this truth and is excerpted from Latham's book The Two Gospels.

"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), pp. 54-55, emphasis his, second ellipsis added.

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

Grace or Good Intentions? Pt. 2

"Contend earnestly for the faith that has been delivered once for all to the saints." Jude 3, NKJV.

The Christian apologist Walter Martin once said: "There is a verse in Scripture which, I believe, has great significance. It’s found in the book of Jude. It’s a simple verse. And I’m sure that you have memorized it at one time or another, or should have. It’s verse 3. Jude said, 'When I wrote to you concerning our common salvation, it was necessary for me to urge you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.' That’s the King James. But the Greek is a little better. The Greek says, 'When I wrote to you about our common salvation, it was necessary for me to urge you to put up a stiff fight for the faith, once for all time delivered to the saints.'"[1] It is in this context that I write the following words:

Dogmatic Theology vs. The Bible

In the Old Testament, God's Word is described as a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces: "'Is not My word like fire,' declares the LORD, 'and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?'" (Jer. 23:29). Here God is emphasizing the powerful, intense, and shattering nature of His Word against hard hearts and false teachings. It comes in a passage where God is distinguishing His true prophets and their messages from the false prophets of the time. How applicable to today! For example, the hard heart says: "I find it impossible to believe." But what a hard heart finds "impossible to believe" is quite irrelevant to what the Bible says. That is, a person's subjective experience or personal unbelief does not affect the truthfulness of God's Word. Subjective experience and objective truth are two completely different things. The Bible is still true regardless of how a person feels about it or whether they believe it or not. "I find it impossible to believe" is subjective; the focus is on self. Although it may be an honest statement, the focus is wrong. Our focus should be on the objective truth of God's Word: "What do the Scriptures say?" (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30). That's where we should begin. The proper approach to Bible interpretation is to test all things (1 Thess. 5:21) against THE BIBLE, retaining only those doctrines that are consistent with Scripture.

What I noticed about Mark's three comments from Part 1 is that he was mainly repeating his theological biases and man-made dogmas, not interacting with the Scriptures I cited. In fact, in his "last" comment, he didn't address any of the Bible verses I mentioned. And he himself cited a grand total of ZERO Bible verses! How can any Bible-believing Christian be expected to take such reasoning seriously when it's nothing more than theological conjecture and personal opinion, rather than "Thus saith the Lord"? What I noticed is that Mark (the non-inspired) didn't defend his view in response to my comments other than to say, "I find it impossible to believe." So that proves my point that his gospel is something DIFFERENT from what I'm saying the gospel is. Mark is essentially saying that a person can be saved by "faith plus" rather than by "faith alone"! Furthermore, Mark is not being honest with: (1) what Wesley and Luther said in their statements I quoted, (2) what I said in my statements, and (3) what the Roman Catholic Church and it's followers have said in their statements. I address this in more detail below, in the section titled "Roman Catholics and Salvation By Grace".

Someone might say that Mark does go back to the Bible in regards to his affirmation of salvation by faith. But let's be honest. That's not what the problem is. The problem is everything else he's adding to it or allowing to be added to it that I've pointed out in my previous comments (see Part 1 in this series). That's where Mark is not going back to the Bible. Does he have proof texts? Of course. So do the cults! As the saying goes, "A text without a context is a pretext for error." For example, Mark reads Acts 15 (the Jerusalem Council) in isolation; apart from Paul's statements about it in Galatians chapter 2. That is not dealing honestly with the text. Mark is ignoring those passages which challenge his theological viewpoint. For example, he never addressed my point from Gal 2:4 where Paul calls at least some of the Judaizers "false brethren"! J. Vernon McGee has well said: "We need to read the Bible. Not just a few favorite verses, but the entire Word of God."

The Mosaic Law and Good Works

As I continue to address Mark's objections, I'll shift to speaking directly to him for a more personal and pointed response. Mark said: "You continue to not address what I said about human good works verses the Mosaic law, not being the same thing." No, actually I did address it when I pointed out that in Acts 15:1 the false teachers were saying to add circumcision, which was a requirement for Israelites living under the Mosaic Law. So that is one example of a work that is a work of the Mosaic Law, which disproves your statement about human good works and the Mosaic Law "not being the same thing." Furthermore, your view that human good works and the Mosaic Law are "not...the same thing" entirely misses the point. Because the Mosaic Law by definition is a list of things to do. It's a list of rules to keep (613 rules, to be exact), i.e. WORKS TO DO. And if you are making a distinction between Mosaic Law good works vs. non-Mosaic Law good works, I already addressed that when I discussed Ephesians 2:8-9. In Eph. 2:8-9, Paul isn't talking specifically about Mosaic Law good works. Rather, he's talking about good works in general (we could call them non-Mosaic Law good works). This is clear from the text and from the context. Because in Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul doesn't mention the Mosaic Law. That makes sense because Paul is writing to Gentiles (see Eph. 2:11).

The distinction that you make between "Mosaic Law human good works" and "non-Mosaic Law human good works" misses the point entirely, because although your distinction between Mosaic Law good works vs. non-Mosaic Law good works is valid as far as Mosaic vs. non-Mosaic is concerned, there is still a deeper and more fundamental similarity between "Mosaic Law good works" and "non-Mosaic Law good works" that you are completely missing. And the similarity between the two that you're missing is quite obvious: they are BOTH good works! And the Bible excludes them both as a means of salvation, in whole and in part. For example, non-Mosaic Law good works are excluded as a means of salvation in the following passages: Rom. 4:1-5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5, etc. And similarly, adding Mosaic Law good works are also excluded as a means of salvation (see Rom. 3:19-20; Gal. 2:16). So your conclusion is invalid and doesn't agree with what the Bible says. The bottom line is that although "Mosaic Law good works" and "non-Mosaic Law good works" are different categories of good works, both are nonetheless still good works!

Let me illustrate. Let's say that God told you, "Take the flight that I provide for you to New York. Don't drive! Not even a little!" But let's say that you did fly to New York, although not on the flight He provided. Instead, you drove part way and took another flight the rest of the way. And let's say when God asked you about it, you said: "Yes, I drove part way, but it's ok. My car's a Honda, not a Ford!" That reasoning is invalid and makes no sense, because regardless of what type of car it was, you still drove when it was prohibited! And the same is true in regards to Mosaic Law good works vs. non-Mosaic Law good works. Even though they are in different categories or are different types of good works, both Mosaic Law and non-Mosaic Law good works are prohibited in Scripture as a means of salvation in whole or in part.

And furthermore, it's a false dichotomy to say that the Mosaic Law is somehow different from human good works. Paul combines them together when he says it's "works of the Law" (Gal. 2:16b; cf. Rom. 3:20; Phil. 3:9). So if that's your argument, it's self-refuting because Ephesians 2:8-9 doesn't mention the Mosaic Law; it simply says that salvation is "not of works, so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:9; cf. Rom. 4:4-5; Titus 3:5). Put the emphasis on the phrase, "so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:9b) and you will see it excludes all human good works for salvation -- in whole or in part, and in whatever form they take!

So God's Word rules out BOTH the "Mosaic Law good works" AND the "non-Mosaic Law good works" added to faith in Christ for salvation. Neither can be added to faith in Christ for salvation. Both are ruled out! The New Testament affirms that works of the Mosaic Law are excluded as a basis for salvation (e.g., Rom. 3:19-20; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9). Furthermore, other passages rule out all human good works—whether under the Law or not—as a means of justification (e.g., Rom. 4:1-5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).

Roman Catholics and Salvation By Grace

In your "last" comment you brought up Roman Catholics. Thank you for finally giving the reason why you hold your view, which is that you don't think the road to heaven is so narrow as to exclude religious people such as the Roman Catholics who believe in a "faith plus works" gospel. Apparently you think Roman Catholics believe in faith alone?! Actually Roman Catholics don't agree with you on that (on good works only for sanctification, but not for justification), so you are misrepresenting Roman Catholic doctrine. And in your last comment the reason why you're saying that finally comes out. You don't think Roman Catholics are lost. Your real problem is you don't believe the way to heaven is so narrow as to be through Christ alone apart from works (see John 14:6). But Jesus said, "The way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who find it. But the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it" (Matthew 7:13-14).

You mentioned Ken Wilson, but even he acknowledges that "Catholics overtly require works for justification (faith + works → justification)."[2] So you are misrepresenting what Roman Catholics believe and teach. Yes, Roman Catholics can be saved if and when they place their complete trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation (apart from works), but that is THE EXCEPTION among Roman Catholics, not the rule. And furthermore, if and when a Roman Catholic gets saved, they are saved IN SPITE OF the Roman Catholic Church, not because of it. In order to get saved, a Roman Catholic must repent (change their mind) and trust in Christ alone for salvation; not faith plus works (as the RCC teaches).

What you're saying is that since Roman Catholics supposedly "believe in Jesus," they're true Christians. But not so. Notice what Lance Latham says in his book The Two Gospels, when he writes the following under the heading "Believe in Jesus" (p. 46): "Ask any Roman Catholic, 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ?' and he will answer, 'Of course.' Is this man therefore saved? The real question is, 'Where is your hope?' Are you DEPENDING upon Christ and what He has done at Calvary alone, or is your hope in penances performed, masses, baptism and so forth? This is not faith in Christ and His work; this is faith in YOUR own works, faithfulness to church, and therefore cannot SAVE!" Sadly, the vast majority of Roman Catholics don't actually "believe in Jesus" in the biblical sense, because according to the Bible, belief excludes human good works (see Romans 4:4-5). Evangelical theologians largely agree on this point.[1] 

Let's take a closer look at Ephesians 2:8-9, particularly as it applies to what is taught by the Roman Catholic Church regarding how to be saved. In Eph. 2:8-9, Paul says that salvation is "not by works, so that no one can boast" (v. 9). I already went into great detail in some of my previous comments explaining that even doing one good work for salvation or added to faith in Christ would give a person something to boast about, which Paul says is not the way to be saved (Eph. 2:9). So Paul rules that out. But you want to rule it in! You want to allow for it. You want to allow someone such as a Roman Catholic to add in those good works FOR salvation and allow for them to still get saved that way. But Paul rules that out when he says, "not by works so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:9).

You seem unwilling to accept the biblical truth that, as Jesus said: "The way is BROAD that leads to destruction, and MANY are those who find it. But the way is NARROW that leads to life, and FEW are those who find it" (Matt. 7:13-14). And Jesus says elsewhere that He is the ONLY way to heaven, not "a way" but "the way" (Jn. 14:6). Please don't misunderstand, no one is saying that all Romans Catholics are lost. I've personally met some saved Roman Catholics. They just don't want to leave the Romans Catholic Church for whatever reason. One lady I met who was a Roman Catholic agreed with me that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and she of course disagreed with the Roman Catholic church on that because they teach that salvation is by faith plus works. But she didn't want to leave the Roman Catholic Church because she felt that she would have a better ministry to people in the church and that she would be a better witness to people in the church if she stayed in the church herself. I don't agree with her decision to stay in the Roman Catholic Church, but I believe she's a saved woman. So some Roman Catholics are saved IN SPITE OF the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. So it's a straw man argument to say that we (traditional Free Grace people) think all Roman Catholics are unsaved. I don't believe that. Charles Ryrie didn't believe that. Bob Wilkin is no longer traditional Free Grace, but he doesn't believe that either. Actually, I don't know of any Free Grace person who would say that all Roman Catholics are lost. That's not what we're saying. What we're saying is that the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on how to be saved are unbiblical and heretical because officially they teach that human good works are necessary FOR salvation.

So you are misrepresenting Roman Catholic teachings and Roman Catholic theology when you say that they teach salvation by faith alone for justification and then they add good works only after that for sanctification. No, that is incorrect. That is NOT what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. They teach that faith AND human good works are BOTH necessary FOR justification. So you are not being honest with what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. You are saying or at least implying that they are really "brothers in Christ" because you say they teach faith alone for justification and then only after getting saved by faith alone do they add in human good works for sanctification, or that sometimes they erroneously add in good works for justification after already being saved by faith alone. Let me quote your own words so you don't think I'm making this up. You said: "Wilson and I are not advocating a 'faith plus works Gospel' as you have accused us, but rather that people sometimes believe a simple Gospel 'Jesus is the Messiah, the Divine and human Son of God, . . . but then are told erroneously additional steps that they must believe, such as repent of individual sins, confess, be baptized, etc." That's what you said. And then you immediately mentioned the "Roman Catholic" as an example of that. So you are NOT being honest with what the Roman Catholic church teaches, because they DON'T teach what you just said. Rather, the Roman Catholic Church does indeed teach a "faith plus works Gospel"! Are you denying that?! So your example of a "Roman Catholic" proves my point! And if you are saying that not every Roman Catholic adheres to the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, I already told you that myself. So if that's your argument, you are turning the exception (or the exceptions) into the rule -- and that's a logical fallacy! That logical fallacy is called "The Converse Accident Fallacy" or "The Reverse Accident Fallacy". It has been defined thus: "The Converse Accident Fallacy occurs when a handful of exceptions are used to disprove a generally accepted rule. It can also be considered a dishonest argument if done intentionally." Again let me be clear: no one in saying that a Roman Catholic can't get saved by faith alone; I just told you they can. But that is the exception, not the rule. And more importantly, they got saved IN SPITE OF the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, not because of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. So you are turning the exception into the rule and ignoring the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Actually, it's worse because you are blatantly misrepresenting the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. They do in fact teach a "faith plus works Gospel"! Yet you want to chastise me for pointing that out? I dare say that you are not so naïve as to be ignorant of the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in regards to salvation. Thus, you are knowingly misrepresenting the facts, sir. And I exhort you to honesty, which you are sorely lacking here. You brought up Ken Wilson, but he acknowledges that "Catholics overtly require works for justification (faith + works → justification)." So that is what Roman Catholics teach, even according to Wilson.

The Roman Catholic Church's official teachings also refute your argument about works alone for salvation (or faith vs. works) because like the false teachers in Acts 15:1, the Roman Catholic Church requires people (born-again Christians) to ADD WORKS TO FAITH in order to get saved. So, as those in Acts 15, the Roman Catholic Church is not teaching faith vs. works, but rather faith plus works for salvation. Ken Wilson even acknowledges this, as I pointed out above. So that disproves your premise, which is that we're only talking about one or the other ("faith" or "works"), not both, for salvation. But the Roman Catholics (like the false teachers in Acts 15:1) require born-again Christians to ADD WORKS to their faith in order to truly be saved according to the Roman Catholic Church. So it's the same idea. Whether we are talking about Mosaic Law human good works (as in Acts 15:1) or non-Mosaic Law human good works (as the Roman Catholic Church requires for salvation), in each case those human good works are being ADDED to faith alone for salvation. So instead of faith alone for salvation, they are requiring FAITH PLUS WORKS for salvation. Again, Wilson acknowledges this in regards to the Roman Catholic Church. So that refutes your point that it's works vs. faith alone. It's not. It's works PLUS faith alone (or faith alone plus works, however you want to say it) -- which is no longer "faith alone" when works are added to it as a requirement FOR salvation. Again, Wilson acknowledges that "Catholics overtly require works for justification (faith + works → justification)." So that is what we are talking about. You brought up the example of the "Roman Catholic". And I just told you what the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches and what the vast majority of Roman Catholics believe about how to get saved. They believe in "faith plus works" FOR salvation. But you are trying to twist the facts and say in essence, "Oh no, no. That is not what they believe. They are actually brothers in Christ because they believe in faith alone for salvation and then only after they get saved by faith alone, only then do they mistakenly add works as a requirement for salvation." That's essentially what you're saying. And that is simply not true, at least for the VAST MAJORITY of Roman Catholics. Like I said, I agree that a Roman Catholic can get saved. I even told you that I've met some saved Roman Catholics. But that is the EXCEPTION, not the rule. And those saved Roman Catholics personally told me that they DISAGREE with the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on how to be saved, which is faith plus works for salvation. So that's why I'm saying that you are really not being honest with what Roman Catholics believe and teach. Because it's faith plus works FOR salvation, as Wilson even acknowledges. So your entire argument about how Roman Catholics are Christians that we should "fellowship" with because they actually believe in faith alone for salvation and only after that (according to you) do they erroneously add works for salvation is simply not true. I would say that you might be able to find 1 in 1000 or (at best) maybe 1 in 100 Roman Catholics who might agree with you on that. So you are essentially building a doctrine on something that at best maybe only 1% of Roman Catholics actually believe, and you're portraying it as if that represents the majority of Roman Catholics or that it's the official view of the Roman Catholic Church, neither of which are true. So you are actually being dishonest and misrepresenting the facts. Furthermore, your entire scenario completely misses the point because it is the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that are what the vast majority of Roman Catholics agree with and believe. If you are going to start making the exceptions the rule, and argue something based on what a few people within the group might believe in distinction to (or in contrast to) the beliefs of the larger whole, then that is not really being honest with the facts and it's just a VERY weak argument. It's actually a logical fallacy, as I pointed out above. Just think about how fallacious that way of thinking is! Because you could find practically any belief you want that way in some obscure corner of society and latch onto it: you could find some fringe view of a fringe element within a group; whether it is among Roman Catholics or any other group. And you could say, "These people claim to be Roman Catholics, and look what they believe! Therefore I will use their fringe view to represent everyone within their group." That's essentially what you're doing with the Roman Catholics when you say, "[It is not] a 'faith plus works Gospel' as you have accused us, but rather that people sometimes believe a simple Gospel 'Jesus is the Messiah, the Divine and human Son of God, . . . but then are told erroneously additional steps that they must believe, such as repent of individual sins, confess, be baptized, etc." In your next sentence after that statement you mentioned "Roman Catholic[s]". The truth is, you are completely misrepresenting what Roman Catholics teach and believe. Because Roman Catholics DON'T believe what you just said in that statement of yours that I quoted. You qualified it by saying "people sometimes believe" (i.e. "people sometimes believe" in faith alone and then erroneously add works for salvation after getting saved). But like I said, you are essentially building a case based on a "fringe" view that is not held by the larger group. So it's a logical fallacy and a dishonest argument. Furthermore, instead of asking "What do the Scriptures say?" (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30), you are now basing your beliefs on what "people sometimes believe"! With that one statement of yours, you stepped off the solid foundation of God's Word and stepped into the sinking sand of subjectivism and into the quagmire of theological speculation. You need to go back to the Bible! The real problem is that you are starting with your theological presupposition that the way to heaven can't be so narrow as to exclude millions of Roman Catholics who lived during the Dark Ages and who never heard the true gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The fact that millions of people went to hell during the Dark Ages (or during any other time in human history) is a fact that I too find greatly saddening, but I'm not going to water-down the gospel to accommodate society! That's backwards! 

What you are doing is this: you are trying to figure out a theological work-around to the clear teaching of Scripture on how to be saved. Because you think it's too narrow. You can't stomach the sad but true reality that millions of people went to hell during the Dark Ages if what the Bible says is true. But did not Jesus say, "The way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who find it"? Jesus went on to say, "The way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it" (Matthew 7:13-14). It's a sad reality. But changing the gospel or watering-down the gospel isn't the answer. Another sad reality is the unsaved heathen who have never heard the gospel. Are you going to water-down the gospel for them too? To be consistent you would need to do exactly that. Please tell me, how are THEY saved? Are they saved by faith plus erroneously adding works too? They don't even have faith! The Bible says, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ" (Rom. 10:17, NASB). It seems that you have quite a predicament on your hands to get them through the pearly gates! Why not side with Jesus when He said, "The way is BROAD that leads to destruction, and MANY are those who go that way. But the way is NARROW that leads to life, and FEW are those who find it." Believe the words of Jesus and it solves your theological problem! Accept the fact that a "few" get saved compared to the "many" who don't! Let me be clear: I'm NOT saying that no one got saved during the Dark Ages, but there were "few" -- at least according to Jesus. And I'd rather side with Jesus than resort to theological speculation about what people may or may not have believed during the Dark Ages! The Bible says, "Let God be true, and every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4).

Faith, Works, or Faith Plus Works?

You said: "Someone thinking that they need to live an obedient Christian life in addition to Faith in Messiah to be saved is totally different to believing in the Mosaic law ALONE for justification." First of all, in Acts 15:1 the issue was not "believing in the Mosaic law ALONE for justification." Look at the text. What does it say? It says: "Some men came down from Judea and began teaching THE BROTHERS, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.'" (Acts 15:1, NASB, emphasis added). So as I pointed out to you in my previous comments (which you completely did not address), the false teachers said those words to ALREADY SAVED PEOPLE ("brothers," i.e., brothers in Christ). So the false teachers were telling the brethren that they needed to ADD the Mosaic Law requirement of circumcision (a human good work) to the gospel in order to be saved. I explained this to you in detail in my previous comments. I'm surprised that you didn't address it or (if you had a question about it) that you didn't ask me to explain it or elaborate on it in greater detail. This is why I say that you are not really being honest with what I'm saying. Because you are ignoring what I've written and pretending like I didn't address your concerns when I already did IN DETAIL in my previous comments. Not to mention that you are misrepresenting me by saying that I have a "problem" with the gospel. No, I have a problem with you ADDING TO the gospel. That's what I have a problem with, and you are not being honest about that.

The Bible on Grace vs. Works

The following analysis of charis (the Greek word for grace) is taken from Richard Trench's classic book, Synonyms of the New Testament: "There has often been occasion to observe the manner in which Greek words taken up into Christian use are glorified and transformed, seeming to have waited for this adoption of them, to come to their full rights, and to reveal all the depth and riches of meaning which they contained, or might be made to contain. Charis is one of these . . . Already, it is true, . . . there were preparations for this glorification of meaning to which charis was destined. These lay in the fact that already in the ethical terminology of the Greek schools charis implied ever a favour freely done, without claim or expectation of return—the word being thus predisposed to receive its new emphasis, its religious, I may say its dogmatic, significance; to set forth the entire and absolute freeness of the lovingkindness of God to men. Thus Aristotle, defining charis, lays the whole stress on this very point, that it is conferred freely, with no expectation of return, and finding its only motive in the bounty and free-heartedness of the giver (Rhet. ii. 7) . . . cf. Rom. 3:24, δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι ['freely by His grace']; 5:15, 17; 12:3, 6; 15:15; Ephes. 2:8; 4:7...and compare Rom. 11:6, where St. Paul sets charis ['grace'] and erga ['works'] over against one another in directest antithesis, showing that they mutually exclude one another, it being of the essence of whatever is owed to charis that it is unearned and unmerited,—as Augustine urges so often, 'gratia, nisi gratis sit, non est gratia;' ['Grace, unless it is free, is not grace;'] . . . charis has thus reference to the sins of men, and is that glorious attribute of God which these sins call out and display, his free gift in their forgiveness. . . . We may say then that the charis of God, his free grace and gift, displayed in the forgiveness of sins, is extended to men, as they are guilty . . . God so loved the world . . . that He gave his only begotten Son (herein the charis), that the world through Him might be saved (cf. Ephes. 2:4; Luke 1:78, 79)."[4] 

This understanding of grace is built directly upon the Old Testament principle that salvation is obtained apart from human good works, where Abraham and David are primary examples of people in the OT who were saved by God's undeserved favor. See Paul's discussion in Romans 4:1-16, where he cites Abraham (from Genesis 15:6, = justified pre-Mosaic Law, i.e. not under the Mosaic Law) and David (from Psalm 32:1-2, justified under the Mosaic Law) as examples from the Old Testament of those who were saved by grace through faith apart from works of any kind — be it "non-Mosaic Law good works" or "Mosaic Law good works". Both are excluded from salvation by grace!

ENDNOTES:

[1] Walter Martin, "Dr. Walter Martin – Kingdom of the Cults Part 1/7 – Introduction to the Cults" (timestamp approx. 22:00 - 25:30), YouTube.

[2] Kenneth Wilson, Heresy of the Grace Evangelical Society, p. 133.

[3] See the quotes by Douglas Moo, Leon Morris, and Robert H. Mounce that are cited in my blog post "Are Roman Catholics Born Again?" (see endnote 10). For more information see Bob Wilkin's blog post titled "Works Salvation and the New Birth, Part 3" (February 15, 2021), GES blog.

[4] Richard C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), pp. 166-171, ellipsis and bold added. Note: I transcribed some of the Greek letters into English and updated the Roman numerals of the Scripture references to the current format.

The Bible on Grace vs. Works

The following analysis of charis (the Greek word for grace) is taken from Richard Trench's classic book, Synonyms of the New Testament:

"There has often been occasion to observe the manner in which Greek words taken up into Christian use are glorified and transformed, seeming to have waited for this adoption of them, to come to their full rights, and to reveal all the depth and riches of meaning which they contained, or might be made to contain. Charis is one of these . . . Already, it is true, . . . there were preparations for this glorification of meaning to which charis was destined. These lay in the fact that already in the ethical terminology of the Greek schools charis implied ever a favour freely done, without claim or expectation of return — the word being thus predisposed to receive its new emphasis, its religious, I may say its dogmatic, significance; to set forth the entire and absolute freeness of the lovingkindness of God to men. Thus Aristotle, defining charis, lays the whole stress on this very point, that it is conferred freely, with no expectation of return, and finding its only motive in the bounty and free-heartedness of the giver (Rhet. ii. 7) . . . cf. Rom. 3:24, δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι ['freely by His grace']; 5:15, 17; 12:3, 6; 15:15; Ephes. 2:8; 4:7 . . . and compare Rom. 11:6, where St. Paul sets charis ['grace'] and erga ['works'] over against one another in directest antithesis, showing that they mutually exclude one another, it being of the essence of whatever is owed to charis that it is unearned and unmerited, — as Augustine urges so often, 'gratia, nisi gratis sit, non est gratia;' ['Grace, unless it is free, is not grace;'] . . . charis has thus reference to the sins of men, and is that glorious attribute of God which these sins call out and display, his free gift in their forgiveness. . . . We may say then that the charis of God, his free grace and gift, displayed in the forgiveness of sins, is extended to men, as they are guilty . . . God so loved the world . . . that He gave his only begotten Son (herein the charis), that the world through Him might be saved (cf. Ephes. 2:4; Luke 1:78, 79)."[1]

This understanding of grace is built directly upon the Old Testament principle that salvation is obtained apart from human good works, where Abraham and David are primary examples of people in the OT who were saved by God's undeserved favor. See Paul's discussion in Romans 4:1-16, where he cites Abraham (from Genesis 15:6, = justified pre-Mosaic Law, i.e. not under the Mosaic Law) and David (from Psalm 32:1-2, justified under the Mosaic Law) as examples from the Old Testament of those who were saved by grace through faith apart from works of any kind — be it non-Mosaic Law good works or Mosaic Law good works. Both are excluded from salvation by grace!

Reference:

[1] Richard C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), pp. 166-171, ellipsis and bold added. Note: I transcribed some of the Greek letters into English and updated the Roman numerals of the Scripture references to the current format. Editor.

"Repentance" in Hebrews 12:17: A Change of Mind!

Repentance according to the Bible means a "change of mind". In the Greek language of the New Testament, "repentance" (Gr. metanoia) means "to change one's mind". A clear example of this is found in Hebrews 12:17, which says: "For ye know that even when he afterward desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place for a change of mind [Gr. metanoias] in his father, though he sought it diligently with tears" (Hebrews 12:17, ASV). Twist this Scripture to your own destruction, O ye Calvinists!

Has Your Gospel Been Chopped?

"For I handed down to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." —The Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, NASB

The Cat Illustration: A Lordshipper's Attempt to Prove His False Belief

I recently heard Matt Mason of Lion of Fire Ministries illustrate why he believes that good works in a person's life are necessary to prove salvation. He said that the way he explains it is to tell people, "A cat meows. Meowing doesn't make it a cat. But because it's a cat, it will meow." Matt Mason says that if a cat is a real cat, it will meow. That's how he illustrates his view that if a person is a real Christian, he or she will do good works. Matt says that it's not how many good works a person does (or doesn't do) but rather that they will do some. 

Well, that is at least a nice attempt to illustrate his belief. But there's a glaring problem with Matt Mason's cat illustration. And it's simply this: A cat is still a cat even if it never meows! This is plainly obvious. If a cat never meows, are you going to say it's not a cat?! That's ridiculous. No sane person would ever say that. Rather, they would either say: "I wonder what's wrong with this CAT that it never meows?" Or they would say, "Why isn't this cat meowing?" Only an idiot would take their cat to the vet and say, "I thought this animal was a cat, but it's not meowing. Since it's never meowed a day in it's life, I'm now convinced it's not really a cat!" Get ready to call an ambulance because the vet just might die laughing!

The Fatal Flaw: Matt Mason's Own Admission Vindicates Free Grace

"We are destroying arguments and all arrogance raised against the knowledge of God..." (2 Cor. 10:5, NASB).

In recent years, the debate between Free Grace Theology and Lordship Salvation has intensified, especially online. One of the latest attempts to refute Free Grace comes from Matt Mason of Lion of Fire Ministries, whose video ironically proves the very point he tries to deny.

The core conflict in the modern Free Grace vs. Lordship debate centers on whether a believer's faith must result in a specific, visible level of life change to prove salvation is real. Matt Mason attempted to "EXPOSE" Free Grace Theology in his video "Free Grace Theology EXPOSED," but instead, his own words offered a devastating concession.

The logical inconsistency arises from his own statement that after salvation, the Holy Spirit produces "a transformed life, to whatever degree." The critical question is: What happens at one degree? The logical extension of his argument allows for a transformation so small that it's virtually undetectable to human eyes, which is precisely the point of Free Grace Theology. His own admission means that, hypothetically, a believer's life could remain 99% unchanged, which means the only way to know he is saved is by the faith he expressed, not the works he failed to produce.

When I raised this logical point in a comment on his video, I noted that based on his own phrasing, even a man who remains 99% evil could still be a saved man. That kind of minimal change can't distinguish a saved man from an unbeliever, except in the eyes of God alone. (I discuss this theological principle further in my blog post, "Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith, Pt. 1".)

So beware of Lion of Fire Ministries! For although it claims to exalt grace, it preaches a different gospel than the one Paul called "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24).

Grace or Good Intentions? Pt. 1

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one should boast."  Ephesians 2:8-9

What is saving faith? Is it simply trusting in Christ for salvation, or does it also include my own good intentions to live a better life and walk in obedience to God's commands? Free Grace says the former, while Lordship Salvation says the latter.

For example, Wayne Gruden, a Reformed theologian and a proponent of "Lordship Salvation" (although he prefers not to use that label), says that saving repentance (which he agrees is included in saving faith) is "a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ."[1] So all these things are included in saving faith, according to Grudem.

But notice this testimony from a former "proud Pharisee" who had similar good intentions, but came to realize that this is not the way of salvation by Christ alone:

"Let me confess ingenuously [candidly], I was a professor of religion, at least a dozen of years, before I knew any other way of eternal life, than to be sorry for my sins, and ask forgiveness, and strive and endeavor to fulfil the law, and keep the commandments, according as Mr. _____, and other godly men had expounded them: and truly, I remember, I was in hope, I should at last attain to the perfect fulfilling of them: and in the mean time, I conceived, that God would accept the will for the deed, or what I could not do, Christ had done for me.

And though at last, by means of conferring with Mr. Thomas ______ in private, the Lord was pleased to convince me, that I was yet but a proud Pharisee; and to show me the way of faith and salvation by Christ alone."[2]

Similarly, notice the following account from the life of John Wesley:

"It is well known that the celebrated John Wesley was a long time in deep anxiety about his salvation, and for years lived, as he himself says, 'preaching, and following after, and trusting in that righteousness whereby no flesh can be justified.' When alluding to the days he spent at the university, and the state of mind he was then in, he writes—'I cannot well tell, what I hoped to be saved by now, when I was continually sinning against that little light I had; unless by those transient fits of, what many divines taught me to call, repentance.' 'The struggle,' he tells us, 'continued for ten years,' until one evening he listened to a person who was reading Luther's 'Preface to the Romans.' While he heard the Reformer's description of the change which God works in the heart, through faith in Christ, he felt as he had never done before; 'I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for my salvation, and an assurance was given me, that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.' Soon after his conversion, he paid a visit to the Moravian Settlement, at Hernhutt, in Germany, and tells us, in his Diary, that his views became much clearer, and his faith strengthened by the private conversations and public discourses he there enjoyed. He speaks of one sermon preached by Christian David, that made an abiding impression upon his mind. His words are as follows:—'The fourth sermon which he preached, concerning the ground of our faith, made such an impression upon me, that when I went home, I could not but write down the substance of it, which was as follows:'—And here is a part of the sermon. 'You grieve for your sins; you are deeply humble; your heart is broken. Well. But all this is nothing to your justification. The remission of your sins is not owing to this cause, either in whole or in part. Nay, observe farther, that it may hinder justification; that is, if you build anything upon it; if you think I must be so and so contrite; I must grieve more before I can be justified. Understand this well. To think you must be more contrite, more humble, more grieved, more sensible of the weight of sin, before you can be justified, is to lay your contrition, your grief, your humiliation, for the foundation of your being justified; at least, for a part of the foundation. Therefore, it hinders your justification; and a hindrance it is which must be removed, before you can lay the right foundation. The right foundation is not your contrition, not your righteousness, nothing of your own; nothing that is wrought IN YOU by the Holy Ghost; but it is something without you; viz.: the righteousness and blood of Christ. This is the word, 'To him that believeth on God which justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.' See ye not that nothing in us is the foundation. Works? Righteousness? Contrition? No. Ungodliness only. This, then, do, if you will lay a right foundation. Go straight to CHRIST, with all your ungodliness. Tell him, 'Thou, whose eyes are as a flame of fire, searching my heart, seest that I am ungodly. I do not say, I am humble or contrite; but I am ungodly. Therefore, bring me to him that justifieth the ungodly. Let thy blood be the propitiation for me: for there is nothing in me but ungodliness.'"[3]

Oh how futile it is to try to gain God's acceptance and favor through self-effort and striving, rather than by simply receiving and resting!

 

Let us heed the warning of Martin Luther when he instructs us not to confuse law with grace:

"Therefore I warn you, and each one of you, especially such as are to be directors of the conscience, that you exercise yourselves in study, reading, meditation and prayer, so as you may be able to instruct and comfort both your own and others' consciences in the time of temptation, and to bring them back from the law to grace, from the active (or working) righteousness to the passive (or received) righteousness: in a word, from Moses to Christ."[4]

"For the devil is [accustomed], in affliction and in the conflict of conscience, by the law to make us afraid, and to lay against us the guilt of sin, our wicked life past, the wrath and judgment of God, hell and eternal death, that by this means he may drive us to desperation, make us bond-slaves to himself, and pluck us from Christ. Furthermore, he is [accustomed] to set against us those places of the Gospel, wherein Christ himself requires works of us, and with plain words threatens damnation to those who do them not. Now, if here we be not able to judge between these two kinds of righteousness, if we take not by faith hold of Christ sitting at the right hand of God, who maketh intercession unto the Father for us wretched sinners (Hebrews 7:25), then are we under the law and not under grace, and Christ is no more a savior, but a lawgiver. Then can there remain no more salvation, but a certain desperation and everlasting death must need follow."[5]

The Bible makes it clear in Ephesians 2:8-9 and in many other passages (e.g. Acts 15:11, 20:24; Rom. 3:24, 4:4-5, 4:16, 11:6; Eph. 1:7, 2:5; Titus 2:11, 3:7, etc.) that sinners are saved "by grace," not by good intentions.

If you are trusting—even in the slightest—in your own good intentions to get you to heaven (such as in your commitment "to walk in obedience to Christ"), then you are trusting in yourself, at least in some measure. That is not salvation by grace! I implore you, change your mind (repent) and trust in Christ alone, Christ completely, Christ all-sufficient and Christ enough for salvation, and then you will find rest for your soul! In the back flyleaf of my Bible are written these words, which I wrote there many years ago: "The road to heaven is paved with the blood of Jesus. The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

References:

[1] Wayne Grudem, "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the [Lordship] Gospel (Crossway, 2016), p. 42. In his book, Grudem says that "we are justified by faith alone (faith is the only response that God requires from us), but the faith that justifies is never alone (because it never occurs by itself, but is always accompanied by—or includes—repentance from sin" (Ibid., p. 38). As mentioned above, Grudem gives this definition for repentance: "Repentance is a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ." (Ibid., p. 42.) So according to Grudem, saving faith always "includes" these things. I want to emphasize that Grudem here is not saying that these things follow or should follow saving faith; he is saying that saving faith "includes" these things! All these things are included in Grudem's definition of "justification by faith alone". In other words, it is "justification by faith alone" in name only. In reality, Grudem's definition of "justification by faith alone" includes much more than faith alone! But according to the Bible, saving faith is simply receiving Christ (see John 1:12, 3:16, 4:10; Rom. 3:24, 4:4-5, 6:23, etc.), not making a commitment that I'm going to walk in obedience—that's works!

[2] Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, Part 1, First American Edition (Pittsburgh: Published by William Paxton, 1830), p. xvi.

[3] J. Oswald Jackson, Repentance: Or, The Change of Mind Necessary for Salvation Considered, pp. 50-51.

[4] This statement by Luther (from his Commentary on Galatians) is quoted in The Marrow of Modern Divinity, p. vi.

[5] Martin Luther's Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, https://media.sabda.org/alkitab-8/LIBRARY/LUT_CGAL.PDF (accessed October 15, 2025). 

How Lordship Salvation Fails to Rightly Divide the Word of Truth

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15, KJV).

Lordship Salvation fails to uphold the following biblical distinctions, but instead co-mingles them:

• Do vs. Done
• Law vs. Grace
• Salvation vs. Discipleship
• Faith vs. Works
• Justification vs. Sanctification
• Spiritual vs. Carnal

Proponents of Lordship Salvation may give lip service to some of these distinctions, but in practice they do not maintain those distinctions. For example, Lordship Salvationists will say that salvation is by grace alone, but then if you don't measure up to some artificial standard of good behavior, your supposed "salvation by grace" is null and void. The same is true in regards to faith and works. They say that salvation is by faith alone, but they define faith in such a way as to include works.

Can you think of any other biblical distinctions that Lordship Salvation has failed to distinguish?

Putting a Label on Lordship Salvation: Weak Grace!

I was listening to Christian radio the other day and the song "Your Grace is Enough" by Chris Tomlin came on. It impressed upon me the truth that God's grace is enough for us even when we sin. God's grace will not run out on us when we sin. I thought of the Bible verse that says, "But where sin increased, grace increased all the more" (Romans 5:20, NIV). The idea is that God's grace super-increased or super-abounded! 

According to the Bible, God’s grace is greater than man's sin. The Apostle James tells us that God "gives a greater grace" (James 4:6, NASB). Whenever and wherever sin increases, grace increases all the more! Grace is stronger than sin. Grace is greater than sin.  In contrast to the biblical understanding of God's grace, Lordship Salvation (LS) preaches a weak, watered-down version of biblical grace. Lordship Salvation holds to what I call "Weak Grace". 

According to Lordship Salvation, sin nullifies grace! According to LS, sin conquers grace! How so? LS teaches that if a person who claims to be a Christian sins bad enough or sins for a long enough period of time, then that person was never really saved to begin with. LS says that person's conversion was not really genuine, and that person is showing by their sinful lifestyle that they were never really saved. But what about God's grace? Did it run out? Is God's grace so weak that it cannot save? By no means! For the Scripture says, "Listen! The LORD’S arm is not too weak to save you" (Isaiah 59:1, NLT). Sin can break fellowship but it can never break the relationship between Father and son, erring though he may be. And so we see that the LS position teaches a weak, watered-down, and distorted version of biblical grace. We need to understand the apostle Paul's admonition to Timothy, "You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 2:1, NASB).

"Dear Mr. President" | Gospel Tract

Ever since I heard President Trump say "I'm trying to make it to heaven," I feel compelled to write this gospel tract explaining how to get there. 

Is heaven a reward for good people or a gift for the undeserving? The apostle Paul says that "heaven is free" (Galatians 4:26, Worldwide English NT). Most people don't know this, but the Bible says that eternal life is a free gift! "The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23).

The story is told of Martin Luther, who as a young Roman Catholic monk, crawled up the long staircase of the Scala Sancta on his knees, hoping thereby to obtain the forgiveness of sins. Luther was under the mistaken impression that salvation is obtained through works and penance. But then one day as Luther was meditating on Paul's statement in Romans 1:17, "But he who is righteous by faith shall live," God opened Luther's eyes to the truth of the gospel and to God's amazing grace! Luther realized that salvation is "not by works of righteousness that we have done" (Titus 3:5), but rather by hearing through faith! As the apostle Paul says, "For we maintain that a person is justified (declared righteous) by faith without the works of the law" (Romans 3:28).

The good news of the gospel is that Jesus did all the work necessary for our salvation and now He offers it to us as an absolutely free gift! What is it that Jesus has done? Everything! The apostle Paul explains the gospel by saying "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen..." (1 Cor. 15:3-5). This is good news because Jesus is the only perfect person who ever lived, and He died in our place and "for our sins" (v. 3). God the Father accepted the sacrifice of His Son on the cross because it was a perfect and a complete sacrifice. It fully satisfied God's demands that "the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). As Charlie Kirk has said, "Jesus died so we can live!" To receive eternal life, one must simply accept it for what it is: a free gift! It's like someone who is thirsty being given a drink of water. The thirsty soul must simply receive it by taking a drink! And that's also how to "believe" in Christ and receive eternal life, because that's exactly the illustration Jesus used. In John chapter 7, Jesus cried out: "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink!" (Jn. 7:37). And in the very last book of the Bible, the offer is still available. In fact, it's available today to all who will receive it. And the offer is simply this: "The Spirit and the bride say, 'Come!' And let whoever hears say, 'Come!' And let the one who is thirsty come; and let whosoever will, take the water of life freely!" (Rev. 22:17). Mr. President, when you believe in Jesus as your Savior from sin, death, and an eternity without God and as your only way of salvation, you are taking that drink of the living water! And I assure you on the testimony of Jesus Christ that He will give you eternal life and quench all your spiritual thirst so you will never be thirsty again! Another picture that Jesus used to explain what it means to believe in Him is that He described Himself as "the way": not merely "a" way, but "the way"! Speaking of Himself as the only way to heaven, Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me" (Jn. 14:6). To repeat Augustine's words, quoting the words of Jesus: "You were inquiring how you should go: I am the way; you were asking where you should go: I am the truth and the life. You won’t go wrong when you go to Him, by Him. This is the doctrine of the Christians."

Dear reader, I pray that you will cast aside whatever vainglorious thing might be in your hands that you would dare to present to the Almighty as an offering for your sin, and take the only Savior whom God has provided. He and He alone is "the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (Jn. 1:29). Jesus is the only acceptable sacrifice and the only way to heaven. In the Old Testament, Cain brought the work of his hands as an offering to God and it was rejected. Whereas Abel brought an animal sacrifice; perhaps it was a lamb. The Bible says that God rejected Cain and his offering, but accepted Abel and his offering. God accepted Abel's offering because "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" (Hebrews 9:22). A substitute had to die in Abel's place. Jesus is that perfect sacrifice: "the lamb of God" (Jn. 1:29) slain for us! "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3). Will you receive Him as your Savior today? He stands waiting with open arms to accept you into His family. Jesus is the door (Jn. 10:9-10). Will you enter in?

"Not the labors of my hands 

Can fulfill Thy law's demands; 

Could my zeal no respite know, 

Could my tears forever flow, 

All for sin could not atone; 

Thou must save, 

and Thou alone."

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved!" (Acts 16:31).

In Memory of Charlie Kirk: A Christian Martyr

CHARLIE KIRK
1993-2025

When someone asked me the other day why the American flag was flying at half-staff, I explained that it was because Charlie Kirk had been killed. The person who asked me about it was an elderly woman who didn't watch the news except on rare occasions. And so not surprisingly, she had never heard Charlie Kirk's name before and she didn't know that he had been assassinated. And so I briefly told her who Charlie Kirk was. I said something like, "he was a Christian activist who traveled around to college campuses and talked about Jesus and conservative values." I also mentioned that he was pro-life and that he didn't believe in evolution. He was the co-founder of Turning Point USA. She asked if he was racist, and I said no, he was actually very inclusive! 

I think a lot of people are like that woman. They don't know who Charlie Kirk is. And many who think they know, actually have a wrong impression of him. I'm intentionally using the present tense form of the verb "is" because Charlie Kirk is alive in heaven today! The apostle Paul said, "Absent from the body, present with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8). So, in this blog post I'm going to explain from a Christian perspective who Charlie Kirk is and why I believe that he is indeed a martyr: and not just a martyr, but specifically a Christian martyr. As one pastor has so accurately stated: "Charlie Kirk is now a Christian martyr in America."[1]

Charlie Kirk's assassination is a profound tragedy. And I want to express my deepest condolences to his wife and to his family for their loss at such a time as this. But as Christians, we do not grieve as those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13). We will see our loved ones again in heaven. Furthermore, I believe that God can and will use this horrific event for His good purpose: "All things work together for good to those who love God, who are called according to His purpose" (Rom. 8:28). And I think we must remember that, as Tertullian has said: "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." I want to delve into this topic in a little more detail because I've read quite a few articles arguing for and against whether or not Charlie Kirk should rightly be called a "martyr". What exactly is a martyr? And more specifically, what is a "Christian martyr"? 

I read a good article on this topic titled "Charlie Kirk, the Martyr"[2] on the Biblical Viewpoint blog, and I left a comment there explaining why I agree that Charlie Kirk is indeed a martyr, and specifically why he is a Christian martyr. In particular, I was responding to another comment by someone named Harry who took a different view. I will include his comment below to give some context, followed by my response. But before I get into those comments, I want to say that Charlie Kirk was (and is) a man of deep Christian faith, and that's how he wanted to be remembered most. "I want to be remembered for courage for my faith," Kirk said. "That would be the most important thing; the most important thing is my faith."[3] And so I want to honor Charlie Kirk's memory and his legacy by doing exactly that. I dedicate this blog post to him and to the Savior whom he loved so much and for whom he died, his Savior and mine, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 4:10).

In response to the article mentioned above, someone named Harry said: "It has been painfully obvious for a while that acts of domestic terrorism are not equally balanced across the political spectrum. One side has been openly advocating gun violence against the other side, and openly mocks them when violence occurs. They even call for violence against their own if anyone breaks from the party line they believe in. This is apparently what has happened yet again. Stephen [the first Christian martyr] was murdered because he preached the gospel of Christ, which was apolitical. In fact, Jesus repeatedly resisted pressure to weigh in on politics. [Editor's note: Yet obviously there are things Jesus taught that relate to politics, e.g. Matthew 5:1-16, 22:21; cf. Rom. 13:1-7.] He also never gained popularity by disparaging people that society views as 'less than'. The Good Samaritan is a case in point where He in fact did the opposite, as Samaritans were looked down upon by the Jews. Not to mention winebibbers, prostitutes, etc. [Editor's note: And Charlie Kirk reached out to these same groups of people on college campuses.] Thus, I would not put Charlie in the same category as Stephen." 

In response to Harry's comment above, we are all going to fall short when compared to Jesus. So that doesn't prove that Charlie Kirk is not a Christian martyr. ALL Christian martyrs fall short of Jesus' perfect example. In other words, all Christian martyrs are sinners saved by grace. So pointing out that fact doesn't prove they aren't Christian martyrs. It just proves they are human, which of course is actually a prerequisite for being a Christian martyr! In other words, no one is saying that Charlie Kirk was perfect. There's only one perfect person who has ever lived, and that is Jesus. Even Stephen, the first Christian martyr, wasn't perfect. Yet he was a Christian martyr. And furthermore on the topic of Stephen, Harry said that "Stephen was murdered because he preached the gospel of Christ, which was apolitical." But actually the reason that Stephen was murdered is not because he preached the gospel of Christ, but because he exposed the Pharisees as hypocrites! Stephen gave the Pharisees a long history lesson and then he told them that their fathers were guilty of killing the prophets whom God had sent to them, and now they (the Pharisees) were guilty of killing the Messiah that God had sent, namely Jesus. And Stephen also condemned the Pharisees for breaking God's Law and said that although they had received the Law, they did not keep it. This is why the Pharisees killed Stephen; not because he preached the gospel of Christ per se, but because he (Stephen) exposed the Pharisees as hypocrites and Law-breakers (see Acts 6:8-7:60). And furthermore, on the topic of politics, it's not accurate to say or infer that Stephen's speech was "apolitical" because in the Jewish culture, religion and politics were closely intertwined. Indeed, Jesus was "crucified under Pontius Pilate" as the Bible makes clear (Matt. 27:22-26; Mk. 15:13-15; Lk. 23:20-25; Jn. 19:1-16) and as the Nicene Creed says. For those who may be unaware, Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea serving under the Roman Emperor Tiberius Caesar. The Roman Empire was the ruling political group (i.e. government) in that day. Roman soldiers led Jesus to the cross. Roman soldiers watched the crucifixion. Roman soldiers guarded Jesus' tomb. That obviously has to do with politics. So for Harry to attempt to separate history from politics is quite disingenuous and just factually incorrect. Remember, the gospel is history (His story). And therefore it has everything to do with politics. My point is simply this: Charlie Kirk is a Christian martyr! This should be obvious to anyone who knows the meaning of the word "martyr". According to dictionary.com, a martyr is "a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs." Charlie Kirk's death is therefore by definition a martyrdom because Kirk was killed precisely because of his beliefs, which included his religious beliefs and in particular his Christian beliefs. To deny this is to deny the obvious and to rewrite history in real time. And that is exactly what the political left is trying to do.

* * *

"Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies.'" 

(John 11:25)

References:

[1] Pastor Allen Jackson, "Outnumbered" with Kayleigh McEnany, Fox News Channel (September 11, 2025). 

[2] Michael Griego, "Charlie Kirk, the Martyr" (September 12, 2025), Biblical Viewpoint. 

[3] Charlie Kirk, The Iced Coffee Hour (June 29, 2025). YouTube. www.youtube.com/shorts/TArIIjT41wA

Understanding the Footnote on James 2:24 in The Ryrie Study Bible

I recently came across a question on the SpiritAndTruth.org website where a reader asked Dr. Andy Woods about one of the notes in the Ryrie Study Bible. The question was in regards to the footnote on James 2:24, where Ryrie says:

"This verse is the reply to the question of v.14. Unproductive faith cannot save, because it is not genuine faith. Faith and works are like a two-coupon ticket to heaven. The coupon of works is not good for passage, and the coupon of faith is not valid if detached from works."

Commenting on Ryrie's footnote, the reader says:

"Let me say first off, I really really value Dr Ryrie. His book So Great A Salvation is a great thesis on salvation. I agree with him that believers will bear fruit at sometime, somewhere. Even deathbed conversions have the fruit of peace etc. However his note in the Ryrie Study Bible in James 2:24 is troubling."[1]

At first glance I understand why the questioner would find Ryrie's comments "troubling." But the answer to the reader's question is really quite simple. I wrote about this in more detail in my article "Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith, Pt. 1".[2] The answer is actually contained in the statement when the questioner says, "I agree with him that believers will bear fruit at sometime, somewhere. Even deathbed conversions have the fruit of peace etc." Exactly! That right there is the answer to the question! Because think about it: what does Ryrie say about that in his book? And what does the Bible say about it? Ryrie's book that I'm referring to, of course, is his book So Great Salvation. That's where Ryrie says, "Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow."[3] And that's where Ryrie explains that every Christian has the spiritual fruit of "peace with God" (Romans 5:1). In this same context, Ryrie also brings in other Bible verses, particularly Luke 15:7 and 15:10. This is where Jesus says, 

"I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent." (Luke 15:7, emphasis added.) 

And Luke 15:10 says: 

"In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents" (emphasis added).

So this is the biblical answer! The "good works" that Ryrie links with "genuine faith" are not necessarily even good works in the life of the believer, but rather are good works in others as a result of the believer's faith! The "good works" are not even necessarily done by others on earth, but rather (as in Luke 15:7, 10) are works done "in heaven"! Again, these are good works that are a result of faith, i.e. the angels in heaven "rejoicing" when a person trusts in Christ for salvation! Thus, saving faith is always productive in the sense that it always produces: 1) "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1) -- a spiritual fruit (see Gal. 5:22), and 2) "rejoicing" in heaven (Lk. 15:7, 10). This is the biblical truth according to Jesus Himself. Praise the Lord!

References:

[1] "Q188: James, Faith, and the Ryrie Study Bible" (June 28, 2014), Spirit&Truth.org website. https://web.archive.org/web/20140713031148/https://www.spiritandtruth.org/questions/188.htm?x=x

[2] Jonathan Perreault, "Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith, Pt. 1" (May 22, 2020), Free Grace Free Speech website.

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