A Biblical Defense of Christmas

Grace in the Dungeon: Why John the Baptist's Momentary Doubt Does Not Mean Failure

A Review of John Niemelä's Article, "Did John the Baptist Lose His Faith While in Prison? Matthew 11:2-3" (Grace In Focus, January/February 2025), pp. 17-19.

by Jonathan Perreault

In the article '"Did John the Baptist Lose His Faith While in Prison?", John Niemelä offers a revisionist view of John's experience. While Niemelä raises an interesting question, I find his analysis to be significantly lacking in substance, as it rests primarily on a series of unsupported assumptions. Following is my full review, in which I detail my reasons for saying this.

Niemelä begins the article by asking two questions: "Did imprisonment cause John the Baptist to doubt? Did this courageous herald of the Messiah fail to finish strong?" It is important to realize that these are two different questions, but Niemelä writes as if the latter question must follow from the former. In other words, Niemelä seems to assume that if John the Baptist doubted, then he failed to finish strong. Thus, at the end of the article Niemelä has an entire section titled "PROOF THAT JOHN FINISHED STRONG," as if that was in question. But even if John doubted, it doesn't mean that he didn't finish strong. John the Baptist could have lapsed into momentary or temporary doubt, but Jesus' reply to his question could have calmed his fears and reassured him.[1] Thus, it is entirely possible that John the Baptist "finished strong," even if he doubted. This also answers Niemelä's point about how Jesus praised John the Baptist by saying, "Among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist" (Luke 7:28). In light of this statement by Jesus, Niemelä asks: "Would one expect such a commendation if the Baptist's faith had just crashed? Would Jesus praise him publicly at this very moment? I think not." But is this not grace?! If John's faith had momentarily failed and Jesus still praised him in spite of the momentary lapse, it simply proves that Jesus is gracious! This restorative grace is beautifully illustrated by the specific vocabulary Jesus uses elsewhere to describe how He handles those who are struggling to remain productive. For instance, He who is "full of grace and truth" (Jn. 1:17) lifts up his servant (cf. Jn. 15:2, where the Greek word αἴρω means "to raise" or "lift up") so that his faith will be strengthened![2] Just as a vinedresser lifts a branch out of the mud to give it strength and help it become more fruitful, Jesus used His public commendation to lift John out of the "mud" of his prison-induced doubt. Such a commendation is perfectly consistent with the gracious character of our Lord, who "will bring to light the things hidden in darkness" (1 Cor. 4:5), revealing the true heart of a servant even when it is obscured by a temporary trial.

Niemelä goes on to say, "Over 99 percent of Christians would assert something like ['John the Baptist developed an Elijah complex and didn't finish strong.']" But where did Niemelä come up with that statistic? Maybe he's simply using hyperbole, or exaggeration to make a point. Because even from my brief study on the topic of whether or not John the Baptist doubted while in prison (and I myself being someone who believes that John did, in fact, doubt), I wouldn't even put the number of Christians who believe that at 99 percent! It is likely much less. From my research, I have found that there is actually considerable debate on the issue. If "Over 99 percent of Christians" would assert what Niemelä has assumed, there would hardly be so much debate on the question. As Niemelä even indicated in his article (citing G. H. Trench as an example), there are quite a few Bible commentators who take the view that John the Baptist didn't doubt or lose his faith while in prison.[3]

Drawing from Matthew 11:2-3 and Luke 7:19, Niemelä goes on to contend that "Contrary to overwhelming popular opinion, these verses do not say that the Baptist doubted." Agreed, but neither do those verses state that he DIDN'T doubt! Niemelä then asserts, "Interpreters have assumed that John was depressed." But ironically, his own view is also an assumption! This is evident in that he says, "the text points in a different direction." Since the text doesn't explicitly confirm what Niemelä is assuming, he simply concludes that "it points in [that] direction." So it's Niemelä's opinion, not what the text actually says.

Niemelä then abruptly transitions to discuss the phrase "come and see" in John's Gospel, but he (Niemelä) fails to explain how it connects with the main premise of his article (which has to do with John the Baptist's faith). Niemelä simply says, "After considering the passages in John, a careful examination of Matthew 11 and Luke 7 will be in order." The logic behind this shift is unclear. What's the connection? Apparently Niemelä is attempting to show that John the Baptist sent his disciples to question Jesus for their benefit rather than to allay or relieve any personal doubts of his own. But Niemelä really does not explain the connection very well at all, and thus the entire next section of the article (which Niemelä titles "SENDING SOMEONE TO ASK A QUESTION") feels, if not completely off topic, at least disjointed and out of place. It's as if Niemelä is taking the reader on an excursion, but never clearly telling us where he's going or why.

One thing I noticed about Niemelä's interpretation of these passages is that, despite his claim that "interpreters have assumed that John was depressed," he ironically builds his own case largely on conjecture! A case in point is this statement by Niemelä:

"Was there any reason for John to imagine that some of his disciples needed to be persuaded by Jesus? Yes, indeed. John 3:26 shows that some of them harbored jealousy and ill-will toward Jesus: 'Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified—behold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!' (John 3:26). Their animosity toward Jesus is especially troubling because it was voiced shortly before John’s arrest. Soon, they would no longer have daily interaction with John. If they had a grudge against Jesus while John was a free man, their resentment likely grew during his imprisonment. John’s praises of Jesus in John 3:27-36 fell on deaf ears. What was John to do? How could he persuade those of his disciples who (in misguided loyalty to one who was only Jesus' herald) shunned the very One whom John exalted? John arranged for them to hear Jesus’ answer to the very question they had (essentially) asked him: 'Is Jesus truly the Coming One?' As much as they might wish to avoid Jesus, they would certainly carry out John’s command. It was not the Baptist who needed Jesus’ answer; his disciples were the beneficiaries. John provided them with a chance to hear the answer from Jesus’ own lips."

Notice the words that Niemelä uses to describe John's disciples. He claims: "some of them harbored jealousy and ill-will toward Jesus;" "Their animosity toward Jesus is especially troubling;" "If they had a grudge against Jesus;" "their resentment likely grew;" "his disciples...shunned the very One whom John exalted" -- but none of this is in the biblical text! Niemelä is building his case largely on conjecture. The concern voiced by John's disciples in John 3:26 could more naturally be attributed to misguided loyalty to their mentor, rather than the explicit "animosity" that Niemelä suggests. Even the quote cited from G. H. Trench doesn't go so far as to ascribe ill-will and wrong-doing to John's disciples. Thus it appears that Niemelä is guilty of the very thing he has condemned in others, namely, building his view largely on assumption.

Niemelä concludes his article by saying, "Christianity has misread Matt 11:2-3 and Luke 7:19. John 'outvited' [read: 'sent them out' or 'directed'] two of his disciples to query Jesus so His word would stabilize them. John's intentions were noble; his imprisonment did not give him an Elijah complex." Niemela goes on to say, "Matt 11:11a and Luke 7:28a suggest that John finished strong and will hear, 'Well done, good and faithful servant.'" I have no doubt that John the Baptist will hear "Well done, good and faithful servant" from the lips of Christ on Judgment Day. That is not the point of contention, at least with me. As I've said, John the Baptist could have lapsed into doubt yet still finished strong.[4] Thus both of those things could be true; they are not mutually exclusive.

Years ago Zane Hodges made a statement that perfectly captures the reality of John's struggle, and I agree with it one-hundred percent: "When John the Baptist asked, 'Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?' (Matt 11:3), he was doubting his earlier conviction that Jesus was indeed the Christ."[5] Because of this statement by Zane Hodges, I almost titled this article, "John Niemelä vs. Zane Hodges on John the Baptist Doubting Jesus". I'm not saying that Niemelä is wrong simply because he disagrees with Zane Hodges, but it definitely leaves a person wondering how far out on a limb Niemelä has ventured?

In conclusion, the following statement by Thomas L. Constable will suffice to summarize my view on the question of whether or not John the Baptist doubted: "An old interpretation of John's question is that he asked it for his disciples' sake, but he never doubted Jesus' identity himself. There is nothing in the text to support this view. Rather John, like Elijah, seems to have become discouraged (cf. Matthew 11:14). Probably this happened because Jesus did not begin to judge sinners immediately."[6]

In the end, we do not need to rewrite John's humanity to protect his legacy; the greatness of the Baptist is found not in a perfect lack of doubt, but in the perfect grace of the One who lifted him out of it.

ENDNOTES:

[1] See the comment by A. T. Robertson when he points out "John's moment of temporary doubt due to his long imprisonment." (Robertson, John the Loyal, p. 225; cf. pp. 195-222.) Also see the comment by Merrill F. Unger, "John's imprisonment may have given rise to his doubts, but the miraculous evidences of Jesus' person were intended to calm his fears." (Unger, Unger's Bible Handbook, p. 476, comment on Matthew 11:1-6.)

[2] Commenting on John 15:2, even Bill Mounce is forced to admit the obvious when he says: "To be fair, I should point out that the first definition of αἴρω in BDAG [Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature] is 'to raise to a higher place or position, lift up, take up, pick up." (Mounce, "One Example of the Passion Mistranslation (John 15:2)," Monday with Mounce blog, April 24, 2023.)

[3] As another example in addition to G. H. Trench, see the commentary by Homer A. Kent, Jr. in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute, 1962), p. 947, commentary on Matthew 11:3.

[4] In Niemelä's article "Did John the Baptist Lose His Faith While in Prison? Matthew 11:2-3" on the Grace Evangelical Society website, Bob Wilkin even admits that "it is possible that John the Baptist was going through doubts" (see endnote iv, "Editor's note," p. 19).

[5] Zane Hodges, "Assurance: Of the Essence of Saving Faith," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 1997), p. 8, emphasis added (for the html version of the article, see here).

[6] Thomas L. Constable, Notes on Matthew, 2012 edition, comment on Matthew 11:3. Studylight.org. See also the 2025 edition, pp. 317-318, for a similar treatment.

Ryrie's Summary: "Repentance/Faith in Vital Relationship"

In the landscape of modern theology, the relationship between faith and repentance is often treated as a source of confusion. Are they two separate requirements for salvation, or are they one and the same? In his 1980 teaching notes for "Soteriology and Evangelism" at Dallas Theological Seminary, Dr. Charles Ryrie provided a masterful summary of what he called the "vital relationship" between the two. 

The biblical foundation for this relationship is rooted in Paul’s own description of his gospel ministry:

"[Paul] kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance." Acts 26:20, NASB 1977.

Drawing on this preaching of Paul in Acts 26:20, as well as 1 Thessalonians 1:9, Ryrie clarifies that while a person can change their mind about sin without turning to God, one cannot truly trust Christ as Savior without both changing their mind and turning to God. Here is Ryrie's summary statement on the topic:

SUMMARY: "In Acts 26:20, quoted above, Paul preached that men 'should repent and TURN to God.' But everyone who simply believes the gospel is by that act turning to God. This is well illustrated by Paul's statement about the Thessalonians, 'How ye TURNED TO God FROM idols to serve the living and true God' (1 Thessalonians 1:9). A MAN MAY CHANGE HIS MIND ABOUT HIS SINS AND YET NOT TURN TO GOD. HE MAY TURN TO SOMETHING ELSE. BUT THE MAN WHO ACKNOWLEDGES THE GOSPEL TO BE GOD'S MESSAGE OF SALVATION AND TRUSTS JESUS CHRIST AS HIS SAVIOR MUST OF NECESSITY IN SO DOING BOTH CHANGE HIS MIND AND TURN TO GOD IN THE ACT OF FAITH." (Baker, A Dispensational Theology, p. 414.)

Ryrie's summary statement reminds us that repentance and faith are like two sides of the same coin; you can't have one without the other. Therefore when a person trusts in Christ alone for salvation, they have repented! So let's be clear on what repentance is and what it's not: it is not a separate step in addition to faith alone in Christ alone, but actually is part of believing! Thus New Testament "repentance" (Gr. metanoia) is perfectly consistent with salvation by grace through faith, and how could it ever be otherwise? This understanding of repentance keeps salvation by grace completely free and also answers the charge of adding extra conditions to the gospel, because it makes clear that repentance is part of believing, not an extra step in the salvation process. This keeps the focus where it belongs: entirely on the sufficiency of Jesus Christ!

_____

Source: Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, "903: Soteriology and Evangelism" Teaching Notes, pp. 43-44, emphasis his. Note: This class was part of the core Th.M. curriculum as taught by Dr. Ryrie at Dallas Theological Seminary, circa 1980.

Why Calvinists Lack Assurance and How to Have 100% Certainty Now

For many Calvinists, gaining assurance of salvation means constantly examining their lives, scrutinizing their good works, and asking: "Have I persevered enough?" The following statement by John Piper is typical of Calvinists when he says, "we persevere. That is the way we have assurance."¹ Not surprisingly, Calvinists can never say with 100% certainty in this life if they're really saved or not because according to their belief system, they have to wait until they die before they can find out if they really persevered to the end and finally made it to heaven. But what if you misjudged the fruit in your life and thought you were saved, only to face judgment and realize your trust was never in Christ alone? By then, it's too late. There are no second chances after death. The Bible says: "it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). 

In contrast to Calvinism, the Bible makes it clear that we can have real assurance of our salvation right now! The apostle John says: "These things I write to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13).² We can have a "know so" salvation, not a "hope so" salvation. In fact, the Bible tells us that faith is the assurance! Commenting on Hebrews 11:1, W. H. Griffith Thomas writes: "It is important to notice that this verse is not a definition of faith in itself, but only a description of its effects. The word 'is' is emphatic. Faith is described in a two-fold way. It is the foundation of things hoped for, and the 'conviction (or proof) of things not seen.' The word rendered 'substance' or 'foundation' indicates that faith must have a basis—the Word of God. And so the vital question is not 'Do we believe?' but 'Whom do we believe?' It is not a case of sincerity of belief, but of the truth of what is believed....It will be seen throughout the chapter that faith is not passive but active certitude".³ In other words, faith is being absolutely certain that what God says in His Word is true. The Bible says, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom. 10:17).

But Calvinists have a different focus. For example, in his book "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway Publishers, 2016), Wayne Grudem treats good works as the benchmark of salvation and the basis for assurance (e.g. see pp. 79, 86-87, 89, 92). Grudem's focus is not on God's Word, but on himself; that's how he gains assurance: by looking at himself. That's why he asks, "How do I know that I have believed and that I have been born again?"⁴ What Grudem is saying is that in his view, the only way to have any real assurance of salvation is to look at your life and see if there are any positive changes after you got saved (or supposedly got saved), and if there are, then he says you can have some measure of assurance that you're saved. In response to Grudem's question, my first thought is that if you have to ask that question, maybe you haven't been born again! Maybe you never did believe. So one possibility is that Grudem may not be born again. Even Grudem would have to admit that this is a possibility according to his theological viewpoint, because as I mentioned, he thinks that people can't really know for sure they're saved until they die. In regards to this, someone has wisely said: "If you don't know you're saved, how can I know you're saved?"

I like how D. L. Moody responded whenever someone would say, "I can't believe." (Maybe we could update the statement to say, "I can't believe that I'm saved.") Mr. Moody would ask: "Believe whom?"⁵ And so in answer to Grudem's question, "How do I know that I have believed?," I would ask: "Believed whom?" Notice that W. H. Griffith Thomas made the same point in his statement above. He said that "the vital question is not 'Do we believe?' but 'Whom do we believe?' It is not a case of sincerity of belief, but of the truth of what is believed."⁶ And so this shows again that the real question is: "Believed whom?" That changes the focus of the original question, doesn't it? It takes the focus off myself and puts the focus on something or someone outside of myself. And biblically, that is where the focus of our faith should be: not on ourselves, but on Christ! We need to take our focus off ourselves and turn our eyes upon Jesus! The Bible encourages us to be "looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" (Heb. 12:2). In the Gospels, what happened to Peter when he tried to walk on the water but then took his eyes off the Lord? Peter began to sink! Likewise, when we take our eyes off Jesus we too will begin to sink into doubts and despair. The Bible says that Christ has been made unto us our "righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30). We have God's Word on it, and that is where our assurance is found. In other words, our assurance is based first and foremost on God's Word, knowing that what He says in His Word is true. Or in the words of W. H. Griffith Thomas, faith is having an "active certitude" or an absolute certainty that what God says in His Word is true. Such as this promise given by Jesus Himself: "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life" (Jn. 5:24, NKJV).

Saving faith looks outside of ourselves to Christ. Whereas doubt focuses back on ourselves or in some way takes the focus off Christ and His promise of eternal life. We need to "turn our eyes upon Jesus and look full in His wonderful face!"⁷ The great Bible teacher H. A. Ironside affirms the true basis for assurance when he says: "And now the One who is alive forevermore (Rev. 1:18) is presented as an object for the hearts of His own. 'He was seen'; and the same apostle exclaims, in another place, 'We see Jesus!' (Heb. 2:9). Poor sinners are first led to see the utter impossibility of improving or rendering themselves more fit for God's presence. The eye of faith is then directed to the One who died, in whom believing, they are 'justified from all things' (Acts 13:38, 39). Now they have also an object for the heart, even Christ in glory (2 Cor. 3:18). How different this from what you [focusing on the sinner] have presented! Here, '’Tis Jesus first, ’tis Jesus last, ’Tis Jesus all the way,' while you are cast entirely on yourself."⁸

Calvinists lack assurance because they are focusing on themselves when they should be focusing on CHRIST! 

’Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus, Just to take Him at His word; Just to rest upon His promise; Just to know, “Thus saith the Lord.”

ENDNOTES:

¹ John Piper, "What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism" (March 1, 1985), www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism

² "These things I write" (Grk. tauta egrapsa) in John 5:13 refers to the immediate context (1 Jn. 5:9-12), not to the entire epistle (cf. 1 Jn. 2:1, 2:26).

³ W. H. Griffith Thomas, Hebrews: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), p. 141, ellipsis added. Note: Notice that Griffith Thomas says that "faith is not passive but active certitude". (Ibid.) This is very important to point out because Calvinists oftentimes take the position that faith is passive in the sense that they view faith as a gift of God. They typically cite Ephesians 2:8 in support of their view that faith is a gift of God. But Greek scholars such as Daniel B. Wallace reject this view.  In reference to the word "faith" in Ephesians 2:8, Wallace says that "it is not a gift per se". (See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 334-335.) Nonetheless, it is still a popular viewpoint among Calvinists. In regards to faith supposedly being the gift of God, D. L. Moody has wisely said: "Faith is taking God at His Word; and those people who want some token are always getting into trouble. We want to come to this: GOD SAYS IT—LET US BELIEVE IT. But some say, Faith is the gift of God. So is the air; but you have to breathe it. So is bread; but you have to eat it. So is water; but you have to drink it. Some are wanting a miraculous kind of feeling. That is not faith. 'Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God' (Rom. 10. 17). That is whence faith comes. It is not for me to sit down and [passively] wait for faith to come stealing over me with a strange sensation; but it is for me to [actively] take God at His Word." (Moody, The Way to God, p. 51, emphasis his, brackets added.)

⁴ Wayne Grudem, "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), p. 89, emphasis his.

⁵ D. L. Moody, "Mr. Moody on Believing." The Institute Tie (September 1900), Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 151.

⁶ W. H. Griffith Thomas, Hebrews: A Devotional Commentary, p. 141.

⁷ Helen Howarth Lemmel, "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus" hymn (1922), adapted.

⁸ H. A. Ironside, The Mormon’s Mistake, or What Is the Gospel?, p. 5.

Robertson's Word Pictures on Studylight.org: A Critical Omission

A Key "Gal. 1:6-9" Reference is Omitted from Robertson's Word Pictures on Studylight.org.

by Jonathan Perreault

While doing some research on the gospel, I just noticed that some reputable Bible websites such as Studylight.org and CCEL.org have actually omitted A. T. Robertson's reference to Galatians 1:6-9 from his commentary on Romans 2:16! This is a perfect example of why I don't trust reprints to be accurate to the original work without checking the primary source. And this is likewise why in the FGFS Free Grace Library (see here), I try to feature as many original sources as possible as opposed to reprints. Sometimes the only source for a book is a reprint, but if possible I will link to the actual book on archive.org or on Google Books because those websites have made available the actual scans of the original works.

Here's the original statement by A. T. Robertson on Romans 2:16 from his Word Pictures in the New Testament: "According to my gospel (kata to euaggelion mou). What Paul preaches (1 Cor. 15:1) and which is the true gospel (Gal. 1:6-9)."[1]

Now notice how the reference to Galatians 1:6-9 is omitted from Robertson's statement as it appears on the Studylight.org website: "According to my gospel (κατα το ευαγγελιον μου). What Paul preaches (1 Corinthians 15:1) and which is the true gospel"[2]

Thus even in the book of Romans, Robertson looks back to Paul's definition of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15. That is "What Paul preaches (1 Cor. 15:1) and which is the true gospel (Gal. 1:6-9)"!

ENDNOTES:

[1] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 337, bold added.

[2] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, "Commentary on Romans 2".

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/romans-2.html (accessed December 12, 2025). 

Note: The reprint on the ccel.org website reads similarly. It likewise omits Robertson's reference to "Gal. 1:6-9" from his commentary on Romans 2:16 (see here).

Does God Save People Against Their Will?

Does God Save People Against Their Will? A Response to R. Fowler White's "Review: The Gospel Under Siege: A Study on Faith and Works By Zane C. Hodges" (Heidelblog, September 7, 2023).

by Jonathan Perreault

* * *

A few years ago, R. Fowler White wrote a review of Zane Hodges' book The Gospel Under Siege. I would like to respond to just one statement that White made in his review. To give Mr. White's question some context, here's the statement he made leading up to his question. Mr. White says:

"Unfortunately, the ramifications of Hodges's theology are not as noble as he would hope. On the one hand, of concern to all evangelicals should be the necessary implication in Hodges's affirmations that God continually and finally applies his saving grace to people who do not continually and finally receive that grace by faith [i.e. they don't persevere in faithfulness to the end]. Does this not mean that God may continually and finally save some against their will?"

In reading White's review, I will say that he is a good writer. White writes with an air of sophistication that belies (hides) what is lacking in substance. Because in regards to actual substance, his arguments are unconvincing. He recycles the same worn-out and debunked Lordship arguments that have been regurgitated by his side for years. White's question quoted above is a case in point. Supposing that what Hodges says is correct, and Christians can turn their backs on God (i.e. not persevere in faithfulness to the end), does this not mean that God saves them against their will? That is essentially what Mr. White is asking. The problem with Mr. White's question is that it's based on a false premise: that God saves them against their will. Why is that a false premise? Because God didn't save them against their will if they believed in Him! That should be obvious. Otherwise White would have to say that believing in Christ is against a person's will, which is a ridiculous statement. Is not belief an act of the will? Of course. Even Calvinists teach that saving faith consists of three parts: intellectual (mind), volitional (will), and affective (emotions/heart). Which they label, according to the Latin terms: notitia, assensus, and fiducia. So even according to Calvinists, faith (belief) is an act of the will. But White's point is that those who don't persevere stopped believing. Aha! Therein is the answer! Because is God immutable even when man is not? In other words, is God unchangeable even when man is not? Yes! Of course! For what does the Bible say?

• "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" (Numbers 23:19)

• "For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." (Malachi 3:6)

• "So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us." (Hebrews 6:17-18)

• "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." (Hebrews 13:8)

• "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." (James 1:17)

• "If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself." (2 Timothy 2:13)

In response to Mr. White, we may well ask him a question in return: Didn't Jesus Himself say, "Whoever comes to Me I will never [Grk. ou mē] cast out!" (Jn. 6:35)? Does Mr. White expect God to cast out His dearly beloved children, erring though they may be? I dare say that Mr. White would not be so evil as to disown his own children, yet he expects us to believe that God would? In essence, what Mr. White is implicitly saying is that he is more righteous than God! Perish the thought!

So the core question that I am addressing is whether God saves people against their will? And the answer of course, is no! Because faith by definition is an act of the will. Calvinists will no doubt argue that a faith that doesn't persevere to the end is not true faith, or at least not saving faith. But that is not the question, is it? Mr. White's question is built on the false premise that faith is only an act of the will if it perseveres in faithfulness to the end. But obviously, initial "faith" (I'm using White's terminology) is at least initially an act of the will! A Calvinist might respond and say, "Well it wasn't true saving faith if it doesn't persevere in faithfulness until the end." But that's changing the terms of the question mid-way through! White is asking about "faith," is he not? That's the word he used. Therefore it is a "bait and switch" logical fallacy to all of a sudden say, "Oh, well, but I really didn't mean literally 'faith'. I was really asking about something else." How disingenuous! That reasoning is rightly rejected as a logical fallacy. Thus my point stands true: Initial faith (even if it doesn't persevere) is an act of the will and therefore God is not saving anyone against their will if they initially placed their faith in Him and then stopped believing. That is simply a logical fact. If Mr. White is not asking about "faith" then the burden of proof and the onus is on him to be more clear in his language and say what he really means, rather than ask questions and then redefine his terms to mean something else if he doesn't like the answer.

Did Zane Hodges Change His View on the Gospel?

It's obvious that Zane Hodges did change his view on the gospel: for example, just compare his earlier statements from his book The Gospel Under Siege to his later views. See my blog post titled "The Cross Under Siege" where I document Hodges' departure from biblical orthodoxy.[1] Not surprisingly, no one has yet disproved what I showed in that article, because it's facts. I showed the receipts and the GES folks can't argue with the facts so they just ignore it and talk about something else. I call it "The gilding of heresy." Like the cults, they apparently think that if they can print enough books and write enough articles explaining their heresy, maybe they can distract readers away from the truth (i.e. the saving gospel) and convince people they're right! 

But the question of whether or not Hodges changed his view on the gospel (how to be saved) is really not the key issue. The more important question is: Is Hodges' current view of the gospel biblical or not? Because even if Hodges didn't change his view on the gospel, the question remains: Is his view biblical? That's the real question. Because if Hodges did change his view on the gospel, maybe he changed it from an unbiblical view to a biblical view. That would be a good thing! The GES folks want to focus on whether or not Hodges changed his view. They try to defend their position that Hodges didn't change his view. But if that's true, then words don't mean anything because I've documented statements showing that Hodges did change his view! Not surprisingly, the GES folks have yet to respond. And I wrote that article 15+ years ago! Their actions speak louder than words. They can't deny the facts, so they just ignore them and focus on something else. How convenient! Apparently they think ignorance is bliss, and if they just ignore the truth maybe it will go away. But it doesn't quite work like that. As someone has so eloquently said, "facts are stubborn things." 

So the question of whether Hodges changed his view on the gospel is something to consider, but it's not the real issue and it's not the most important question to answer. The most important question is: "What do the Scriptures say?" (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30). And in regards to the views of Zane Hodges on the gospel (i.e. how to be saved), are his views in line with the scriptural teaching on the subject?[2] The GES folks are acting like the magician who says, "Now concentrate on the card you choose" (directing attention to the card) while he pulls a fast one on the audience! But don't be deceived: regardless of whether Hodges changed his views on how to be saved, his "crossless gospel" teaching is not biblical! It is heresy of the worst kind regarding the most important question in this life and the next. As the Philippian Jailer asked Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). The answer is NOT by believing in a non-descript individual named "Jesus" (whoever that might be!) regardless of whatever misconceptions a person has; but rather by believing the GOOD NEWS of who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation for lost and dying sinners, and specifically for our personal sins that separate us from a holy God.[3] This is the good news of the Gospel, which must be believed for salvation "from Hell" (as it said in the original GES doctrinal statement before Wilkin changed it). 

So beware of the GES, because they are trying to misdirect people's attention to "focus" on something besides "the gospel" (see 1 Corinthians 15) as declared in God's Holy Word to be the only way of salvation, eternal life, and peace with God: the death of the Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary's cross for the sins of the world! It is this message (vv. 3-5) that brings salvation and no other: the message of the old rugged cross and of Him who died on it; this is the ONLY bridge that spans the great gulf which separates sinful man from Almighty God. Have you believed it? If not, do so today!

Oh, the love that drew salvation's plan!

Oh, the grace that brought it down to man!

Oh the mighty gulf that God did span, at Calvary.

"At Calvary," by William R. Newell.

ENDNOTES:

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

[2] For more information see my article: "Getting the Gospel in Focus, Pt. 1" (FGFS, October 24, 2024).

[3] For more information on the GES view of how to be saved, see the article by Antonio da Rosa titled "Believe Christ's Promise and You Are Saved, No Matter What Misconceptions You Hold" (Free Grace Theology, May 25, 2006). Note: It must be kept in mind that the apostle Paul warned of "another Jesus" (see 2 Corinthians 11:4). 

A Free Grace Understanding of Isaiah 55:7

"Let the wicked man forsake his own way and the unrighteous man his own thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that He may have compassion, and to our God, for He will freely pardon." Isaiah 55:7, Berean Standard Bible.

______

I recently had the opportunity to dialog with someone on Isaiah 55:7. The questioner asked: "Does Isaiah 55:7 suggest that one must forsake sin to be saved? It sure reads that way." This is an important theological question that deserves attention. I am therefore presenting the full dialog here because the questioner initially asked me about it in the comments of another blog post, and his questions were a bit off topic there. What follows is the discussion we had related to Isaiah 55 (particularly verse 7), examining whether it supports the belief that a person "must forsake sin to be saved?"

Question:

"Does Isaiah 55:7 suggest that one must forsake sin to be saved? It sure reads that way."

Answer:

Commenting on Isaiah 55:7, the 19th-century Scottish evangelist Robert Murray M'Cheyne was correct to say: "This is one of the sweetest portions of the Word of God, and yet it strikes me that it is seldom understood. I observe that it is very frequently one of the devil's plans to prevent a proper understanding of these passages of the Word of God that are the sweetest and plainest, and thus to turn the honey into gall." (M'Cheyne, Sermon IX, "The Salvation of God".)

Let's take a closer look at Isaiah 55:7 and see what it says and what it doesn't say. The prophet Isaiah doesn't say "let the wicked forsake his sin," but rather "let the wicked forsake his way" (Isa. 55:7, KJV). This raises the question: "his way" of what? The context has to do with "his thoughts" (v. 7, also v. 8) about how to "come" to God (v. 1, also v. 3), i.e. the way of salvation ("pardon" v. 7b). Thus, my understanding of Isaiah 55:7 is that Isaiah is referring to a man forsaking "his way" of salvation (cf. Prov. 14:12, 16:25) and instead coming to God His way, which is through the work of Christ alone! Not the way of self-effort and self-righteousness attempting to clean up your life in order to earn heaven (remember, John Piper says that heaven is a "reward"), that is not God's way of salvation!

Thus the meaning is: "Let the wicked man forsake his own way [of salvation] and the unrighteous man his own thoughts, let him return to the LORD, that He may have compassion, and to our God, for He will freely pardon" (Isa. 55:7). This understanding of Isaiah 55:7 keeps salvation by grace completely free (Isa. 55:1; cf. Rom. 6:23) and is in harmony with the immediate context (Isa. 55:7-8), which focuses on having a change of thinking about how to be saved.

Question:

Very interesting. This is a response I received from another teacher. What do you think of it?

"Isaiah 55:7 reads, 'Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to the Lord, and He will have compassion on him, and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon' (Isa 55:7). Isaiah 55 is part of a broader section (Isa 40–66) in which God calls Israel to return to Him in covenant faithfulness. The invitation in verses 6–7 is addressed to the nation, not individuals seeking justification in the Pauline sense. The call to 'forsake' wicked ways and 'return' to the Lord reflects the prophetic appeal for national repentance and restoration. The Hebrew word for 'return' (shuv) is often used in the context of covenant relationship, suggesting that this is a call for wayward Israelites to come back to their God—not an evangelistic message to unbelievers requiring moral reformation in exchange for salvation.

Biblically, eternal salvation is always by grace through faith alone in the promised Messiah, not by forsaking sin or performing works (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:5; Eph 2:8-9). While a person may indeed turn from sinful patterns when coming to faith, that turning is not the condition of salvation but rather an outcome of spiritual awakening or conviction. In this case, Isaiah is appealing to a nation steeped in idolatry and rebellion to abandon its self-destructive course and seek the Lord, who stands ready to forgive. The abundant pardon offered by God flows from His mercy and grace, not from the sinner's merit or moral effort."

Answer:

It sounds like the author you quoted is writing from a Free Grace perspective, something akin to the position of the Grace Evangelical Society (the GES). They separate Isaiah 55 from individual salvation and try to make Isaiah's statement exclusively about national repentance/restoration. From my research, the traditional Free Grace understanding of Isaiah 55 aligns closer to accepting both positions, namely that Isaiah is calling the nation to return to the Lord, but the invitation extends to the Gentiles as well: in fact, to everyone! So I think it's both actually: "to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile" (Rom. 1:16). Dr. Constable in his Notes on Isaiah sums it up well when he says:

"This chapter [Isaiah 55] is part two of Isaiah's celebration of the Servant's work of redemption, the previous chapter being part one. In view of what God would do for humankind, and especially for the Israelites (ch. 54), people would need to appropriate the salvation that He provided (ch. 55). 

As in the preceding sections (52:13—54:17), the people of God in view are primarily Israel but not exclusively Israel. As the Lord's salvation extends to all people, so do the benefits of that salvation—for as many as take advantage of it. This chapter contains one of the warmest gospel invitations in the whole Bible. It forms a fitting climax to this section of Isaiah that deals with God's provision of salvation (chs. 49—55)." (Constable's Expository Notes, Isaiah 55.)

Remember that Isaiah chapter 53 pertains to the Suffering Servant, the Messiah, and the Savior of the world: not just the nation of Israel. So it is not out of context to interpret Isaiah chapter 55 as having a broader context and application than simply national deliverance. Indeed, the author you quoted affirms that "Isaiah 55 is part of a broader section (Isa 40–66)". So Isaiah 53 pretty much disproves his narrow view of Isaiah 55.

Also see J. Vernon McGee's booklet titled Initiation Into Isaiah, pages 125-129. (The book is available in pdf format in "The Free Grace Library" page on my blog.) This is where McGee discusses Isaiah chapter 55, and his commentary on it is excellent. Dr. McGee's comments on Isaiah 55 are similar to those of Dr. Constable. Both men teach that Isaiah 55 has application to everyone and can be understood as referring to eternal salvation, not just to the national restoration of Israel. So my understanding of Isaiah 55 is that the application need not be exclusively or only to the nation of Israel, but (I believe) can and does apply to individuals -- in fact, everyone!

Related to this, I read a commentary recently and it said that Isaiah 55 is never quoted in the New Testament (which is false, by the way), as if that lends support to a very narrow application of it, such as the one proposed in the statement you quoted. But that is not really the whole story or the complete picture, because the imagery of Isaiah 55 (thirsting for the water of life, eating the bread of life, etc.) is repeated numerous times in the New Testament, and by Jesus Himself! See John 4:13-14, 6:35, 7:37-39; Rev. 22:17. 

But actually, the truth is that Isaiah 55:3 is quoted by the apostle Paul in Acts 13:32-34 when he talks about the glad tidings and "the sure mercies of David" (Isa. 55:3; Acts 13:34): they are for us today as well! This was Paul's point in Acts 13. The Scofield Reference Bible's marginal note on Acts 13:34 contains this cross-reference to Isaiah 55:3 (see Acts 13:34 in the old Scofield Reference Bible, with the marginal note to Isaiah 55:3), and Dr. J. Vernon McGee makes this same connection between Isaiah 55:3 and Acts 13:34 and it's application to us today. (See McGee, Initiation Into Isaiah, p. 127.) On this point, Dr. McGee states: "These mercies have been made sure to us because our sins have been put away on the cross of Christ. God's holiness is vindicated and now we have 'forgiveness of sins.' [Acts 13:38.]" Amen!

Note that in his statement above, McGee is clearly referring to the "forgiveness of sins" in the sense of justification. That is clearly what Paul means by it (see Acts 13:38-39). In other words, Paul is clearly talking about eternal salvation for both Jew and Gentile (i.e. justification), not merely the national deliverance of Israel in a physical sense.

In closing I would also recommend that you take a look at the commentary on Isaiah 55 in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. It also affirms the interpretation of Isaiah 55 that I have set forth above. In fact, most Bible commentaries that I've consulted take this view. If you have any further questions, just let me know. God bless!

Question:

My only problem with this is that in the Greek LXX, the word "way" in Greek is plural — ways. That would lend stronger evidence to the turning being from unrighteous ways, or sins. So why not think that while salvation might not require turning from every known sin, it might still require the turning from a general pattern of sinful rebellion. In other words, a thief can't turn from every sin, but they can at least turn from a life of thieving. Arnold Fruchtenbaum seems to hold this view in his "Ten Facets of Our Salvation" in his notes on conversion, and even other FG teachers suggest that there ought at least be a willingness to turn from sin, if nothing else, as opposed to wanting to cling to it, which is just plain rebellion. They say the unsaved can neither turn from nor desire to turn from sin without the Holy Spirit, yet God did command Israel to turn from sins in the OT, and they didn't yet have the HS. If He could expect it of them, then why can't He expect the same from modern unbelievers? He wouldn't ask them to do something if He knew they really couldn't. So maybe a conscious turning from major, overt rebellion (adultery, homosexuality, thieving, drunkenness, etc.) really can be expected, at least to demonstrate that one is genuinely serious about wanting salvation. I mean, why not? I have seem no other commentaries that suggest this is merely a turning from one's own "way" of being saved.

Answer:

Your logic is non sequitur. Just because man is capable of doing something (or is told to do something in a specific context) doesn't mean that it is required for salvation! That would be like saying, "Since God told Noah to build an ark, and Noah did it, that is therefore a requirement for salvation." I hope you see the absurdity of your position.

It sounds like you are preaching a gospel of self-reformation, or at least a willingness to do so in part. That is works-salvation my friend, and it is condemned by God (see Isa. 64:6; Prov. 16:2; Lk. 16:15; Rom. 10:2-3; Gal. 3:10; Phil. 3:9, etc.). Furthermore, the plural "ways" in the Greek LXX of Isaiah 55:7 doesn't support a works-based view of repentance, and I'll tell you why. Because everyone has their own (oftentimes differing) ideas of how to get to God. Isaiah 55:7 is not addressed to merely one individual person who has "a way" (cf. Prov. 14:12; 16:25), but to people in general ("all you who are thirsty," v. 1): all of whom have their own oftentimes differing conceptions or ideas of the supposedly right way to God. Obviously not everyone thinks there is only one way (or the same way) to God. Instead, people think there are many "ways" to God. This should be plainly obvious and hardly needs further proof. Just talk to ten people on the street where you live to verify it. M'Cheyne quite eloquently pointed this out in his sermon on Isaiah 55:7-9 when he said:

---"Let us see what is to be forsaken, verse 7: 'Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts.' Compare this with the eighth verse: 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.' 

---Observe then, dear brethren, what it is that all unregenerate men are called upon to forsake. You are called upon to forsake your way — your way of pardon — your way of peace with God, and the reason given is that God's way is not as your way, neither his thoughts as yours. Now, observe first that every carnal man has got some plan by which he thinks to get to heaven. This is what God thinks of here. The wickedest man here has got some kind of a way of pardon of his own. You will not find a man on the earth but hopes that at death, or at the judgment day, he will get free. Ah, brethren, if it were not for this, you would not rest as you do. If you had no thoughts of pardon, you could not laugh as you do. And, therefore, you may lay it down as an axiom that every natural man has a way by which he hopes to be saved. 'Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.' 

---The plans of all worldly men may be resolved into this one — self-righteousness. There is one man who says he hopes to be saved, for God is merciful. God will not destroy the souls that he has made. Another man thinks God will save him for his sincere endeavours. He is a kind God, and he will save me for my best endeavours. I dare say, the hearts of many agree to that. This is the answer I get in most houses I go to, when I ask, Are you willing to be saved? You say, I am trying to do the best I can. [...] 

---These are some of the ways that men look to for salvation. You will see that their aim is self-righteousness. This is the way you are commanded to forsake this day. O brethren, what is your way? Sinner, you are commanded to forsake your way. 

---Observe, farther, that this way is different from God's way — 'For my ways are not as your ways, neither my thoughts as your thoughts.' God's way of justifying a sinner is by the death and obedience of his Son. It is not by washing away your sins yourself, but it is by casting yourself under the doing and dying of his Son. I say, then, it is not your way; I say farther, it is higher than your way. You are groping in the dark, but God's way is in the light. And then it is a more glorious way; just as there is a greater glory spread over the bespangled heaven than there is over this poor earth, so is there over God's way. God's is high up — a perfect, righteous way. Your sins may be covered by this way as completely as the waters of the flood covered the earth." (M'Cheyne, Sermon IX, "The Salvation of God.")

In closing you said, "I have seen no other commentaries that suggest this is merely a turning from one's own 'way' of being saved." Then why not accept the Bible's statement on it? It clearly says exactly that! "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:6)

Question:

Alright, but wouldn't that be inserting our preconceived ideas or theology into the text? How do we know God is speaking of ways of pursuing salvation, and not simply ways of sinful works/rebellious lifestyles? How do we know He's not referencing thoughts because even our thoughts are sinful and enough to condemn? Jesus said that even to look after a woman with lust is to commit adultery. Is it really that clear, or could one not argue that yours is a minority view that you are forcing into the text? In context, aren't sinful works more likely? Israel had been taken into captivity because of their sinful rebellion of idolatry, etc. Seems a harsh punishment if all that was needed was to correct their view of how to come to God.

Answer:

How do we know God is not talking about forsaking sinful lifestyles? Because that's works salvation, right? So then you would have to say that Isaiah 55 is not about eternal salvation, but merely national deliverance. But the apostle Paul in the NT interprets it as pertaining to eternal salvation—that is, justification—in Acts 13:34 (quoting Isaiah 55:3; cf. Acts 13:38-39).

You have a lot of questions because you have not laid the groundwork nor a solid foundation based on the whole counsel of God's Word. And so you have all these ideas and questions swirling around in your head. Take one step at a time. Build the foundation first. Little by little. Precept upon precept. "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little" (Isa. 28:10, KJV). 

I just told you one precept. So now we know, based on the Word of God, that Isaiah 55 is not only about national deliverance, but more significantly, it pertains to eternal salvation. I just gave you chapter and verse for it. So is the apostle Paul inserting his "preconceived ideas or theology" into the text when he explains his understanding of Isaiah 55:3 in Acts 13? Hardly. Rather, he is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is God's Word, and I suggest you take heed to it: "Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you." (Acts 13:40-41, KJV).

I also want to say something in regards to a previous comment you made. You mentioned the LXX and how in Isaiah 55:7, the LXX reads: "Let the wicked forsake his ways". You mentioned how in the LXX, "his ways" is plural. You seemed to be stumbled by that, as if you didn't know what to believe in regards to how to interpret it. So let's take a closer look at that. It's important to understand that the LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament; the LXX is not the original Hebrew text. So the question then becomes: what does the Hebrew text say? How does it read? In Isaiah 55:7, the Hebrew text reads: "his way" (singular). So the translators of the LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) turned the singular "way" into the plural "ways". Bill Mounce has correctly said: "Translators are traitors." This is because no translation is perfect. Something is always lost or added in translation. In the case of Isaiah 55:7, the translators changed the singular "way" to the plural "ways". So your point about the LXX is interesting, but it doesn't really address the real issue which is that the Hebrew text says "his way": "Let the wicked forsake his way" (not "his ways"). Furthermore, Isaiah 55:7 is never directly quoted in the NT so we don't have that either. If Jesus or the apostles would have quoted from Isaiah 55:7 in the NT, then that would of course be something to consider. But that is not the case. Thus, it is a much stronger argument to go back to the original Hebrew text of Isaiah 55:7 than to rely on a 2nd-century BC Greek translation of it. I just thought I would point that out because when you brought up how the LXX says "his ways" in Isaiah 55:7, it seemed like you were basing your conclusions on that reading or that you were relying on that reading. But my point is that such an approach would not be wise, as least in regards to Isaiah 55:7, because: a) it's not the original reading; it's a translation, and b) it's never directly quoted in the New Testament. If it had been, that would of course lend support to that reading, but that is not the case. In closing let me just say that it is good that you went back to the Greek. But since we are talking about a Bible verse from the Old Testament, the original text was written in Hebrew (not Greek). So in this instance you did not go back far enough. The real question is: what does the Hebrew text say? In Isaiah 55:7, the Hebrew text says "his way" (singular), not "his ways".

Spiritual Warfare

"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord's people."

(Ephesians 6:10-18, NIV)

Understanding Salvation in Light of 1 Corinthians 3:15

Is it possible for a Christian to have done no good works in their life here on earth and yet still be eternally saved? What does the Bible say about it? One Bible verse that sheds light on this subject is 1 Corinthians 3:15. In 1 Cor 3:15 the Apostle Paul writes, "If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet only so as through fire." In context, Paul is describing what could happen at the Judgment Seat of Christ if a Christian has done no good works: he or she "will be saved, yet only so as through fire." The fire is not purgatory, but rather is the purifying effect of God's judgment as He tests the quality of each believer's work.

I'd like to consider a statement by Zane Hodges on the reality of salvation that deals with the relationship between works and belief that may be perplexing to some, especially as it relates to 1 Corinthians 3:15. The particular statement by Hodges that I'm referring to is when he says,

"Of course, there is every reason to believe that there will be good works in the life of each believer in Christ. The idea that one may believe in Him and live for years totally unaffected by the amazing miracle of regeneration, or by the instruction and/or discipline of God his heavenly Father, is a fantastic notion—even bizarre. We reject it categorically."[1]

While many Free Grace advocates wouldn't agree with Hodges on everything, we must be careful not to go to the other extreme of discarding everything he ever said because he may have been (indeed was!) wrong in some areas. That would be foolish! As the saying goes, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day." In regards to the statement by Hodges that I quoted above, several things can be noted. First of all, Hodges doesn't say it's impossible for a Christian to live their whole life without doing any good works; rather, he says the idea is "fantastic" and "bizarre." In other words, biblically it's possible, but it's not the norm (or at least it should not be the norm) and it's not what God wants (see Rom. 6:1; Eph. 2:10, NKJV).

The key to reconciling Hodges' view with Paul's statement in 1 Cor 3:15 is to notice that Hodges qualifies his statement when he says, "The idea that one may believe in Him and live FOR YEARS totally unaffected by the amazing miracle of regeneration...is a fantastic notion—even bizarre." So Hodges is NOT talking about "deathbed conversions" (as Charles Ryrie does in his book So Great Salvation). That would be a different situation. In a "deathbed conversion," a person accepts Christ as Savior but then has no time to do good works because he dies soon after getting saved. Bob Wilkin affirms: "I, too, do not believe that any believer dies with zero good works done during his time as a believer unless he believes in Christ immediately before dying."[2] Wilkin expresses the same idea elsewhere when he says: "FGT [Free Grace Theology] teaches that regeneration does result in some good works in all who live some length of time after the new birth. (Obviously if someone died at the very moment of the new birth there would be no time for any good works to be done.)"[3] So again, Hodges and Wilkin are NOT talking about "deathbed conversions" or, in other words, people who die immediately or very soon after trusting in Christ for salvation. According to Hodges and Wilkin, Christians who die immediately after getting saved may have done no good works! And that is how to reconcile their statements with what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:15. To be clear, I'm not saying that Paul is exclusively referring to "deathbed conversions" in 1 Corinthians 3:15. Rather, I'm showing that the qualification of time in Hodges' and Wilkin's statements is the key to understanding them in light of that passage. That's how to reconcile the statements with each other so there is no contradiction. Personally, I wouldn't narrow down Paul's statement in 1 Cor 3:15  to exclusively "deathbed conversions". But that's how to reconcile the statements by Hodges and Wilkin with what Paul says in 1 Cor 3:15. I'm simply pointing out that there is no inherent contradiction between the claims made by Hodges and Wilkin and the teaching of 1 Corinthians 3:15; the positions can be fully reconciled. This is important to understand because what it means is that Hodges and Wilkin agree in principle that there can be Christians with no good works, "saved yet so as through fire"!

ENDNOTES:

[1] Zane Hodges, "Are Good Works Necessary for Assurance?" (GES News, March 1, 1993), emphasis his.

[2] Bob Wilkin, "Are Some Believers Fruitless?" (GES Blog, October 30, 2025). Editor's Note: I do not necessarily agree that some believers are "fruitless". For more information see my article "A Free Grace Understanding of Fruit vs. Works" (FGFS, July 29, 2025).

[3] Bob Wilkin, "Does Free Grace Theology Diminish the Gospel? A Review of Wayne Grudem's 'Free Grace' Theology: Five Ways It Diminishes the Gospel, Part 1," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Autumn 2016), p. 19.

Dead Faith Stinks!

"What use is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" James 2:14, NASB.

Writing to Christians, the Apostle James says that "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (Ja. 2:17, ESV). Lordship Salvationists use this verse as a proof-text to say that if a person who claims to be a Christian doesn't show good works in their life after salvation, they aren't truly saved (justified). But obviously that conclusion is false in light of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:15, where he very clearly describes how if a Christian has no good works remaining after being tested at the Judgment Seat of Christ, that individual "will be saved, yet so as through fire." So according to the apostle Paul, a Christian will still be eternally saved even if he or she did no good works in the eyes of God. This is important to understand because God's Word doesn't contradict itself. So obviously when James uses the word "save" in James 2:14, he isn't talking about eternal salvation (as Paul is in 1 Cor. 3:15), but rather temporal salvation in this life; that is, salvation from a "dead" (Ja. 2:17) or "useless" (2:20) Christian life in the here and now. This is clear from the context of James 2:14-26, which has to do, not with the afterlife, but with this life here on earth: where "a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food" (Ja. 2:15). Obviously in heaven, "they will no longer hunger nor thirst" (Rev. 7:16). Quite clearly James isn't talking about heaven and hell; he's talking about life down here on earth where "the rubber meets the road." In other words, when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" (Ja. 2:14), he is referring to the present and ongoing process of sanctification in the Christian life (cf. Ja. 1:21; 2 Pet. 1:5-8).

This distinction clarifies what James is talking about, but it doesn't describe the faith itself. So let's dissect "dead faith" and take a closer look: what are some of it's characteristics? What does it look like? What does it smell like? What can we learn about it? Dead faith obviously exists according to the apostle James (and even according to the apostle Paul, see 1 Cor. 3:15), so let's analyze it more closely and see what it is.

The Anatomy of "Dead" Faith:

     1. Dead faith was once a living faith. This should go without saying, but it needs to be highlighted because Lordship Salvationists twist the Scriptures to say that dead faith is not true faith or that it was never there to begin with. Calvinists teach that in order for faith to be true saving faith, it must persevere in faithfulness. But obviously if something is dead it was once alive! Calvinists will no doubt try to deny this by pointing to where Paul says that the unsaved are "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1). Doesn't this disprove the premise that what is "dead" was once alive? How can it be true that those who are "dead in trespasses and sins" were once alive? Because they were alive in Adam! The apostle Paul says: "When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned [in Adam]" (Rom. 5:12, NLT). Obviously before sin and death entered into the world, Adam was alive (see Genesis 2:7); he was not under the sentence of death. This is plainly obvious. Only after Adam sinned did he die, both spiritually (Gen. 2:17) and physically (Gen. 5:5), and death spread to all his descendants (Rom. 5:12-21). As Levi was in the loins of his father Abraham (Heb. 7:9-10), all humanity was positionally in Adam, the corporate head of the entire human race; and after the Fall, all humanity died "in Adam" (1 Cor. 15:22). And so the premise remains true: in order for something to be dead, it first had to be alive. Dead means no longer alive. To deny this is to deny reality. As this pertains to faith, a statement by Lewis Sperry Chafer is especially helpful. In his book Salvation, Chafer asks the question: "What if a believer's faith should fail?" To which Chafer gives the following very insightful answer: "Faith, it may be answered, is not meritorious. We are not saved because we possess the saving virtue of faith. We are saved through faith, and because of the grace of God. Incidentally faith is the only possible response of the heart to that grace. Saving faith is an act: not an attitude. Its work is accomplished when its object has been gained."¹ So that's an excellent and very well-said statement regarding saving faith, and faith in general. What Chafer is emphasizing is that saving faith is a singular, decisive act of relying on Christ that secures for us the free gift of eternal life. It is not our personal merit, nor the strength or continuity of our faith, but the sole object of that faith, the Lord Jesus Christ, that secures all the blessings of salvation! Praise the Lord!

     2. Dead faith means it's real. Calvinists and Lordship Salvationists teach that in James chapter 2, James is talking about spurious or false faith. Commenting on James 2:14, John Calvin argues that James is referring to "a false profession of faith;"² which he equates to false faith: "hypocrites boast in the empty name of faith, although in reality they have no claim to it."³ But it is logically impossible for faith to be both real (i.e. "dead") and unreal! Is a cadaver (a dead body, James 2:26) unreal or non-existent because it's dead? Obviously not. A cadaver is dead, but real. Just because something is "dead" doesn't mean that it is unreal or non-existent. Calvin is twisting "a false profession" to mean a false or non-existent faith. Calvin says that when James speaks of faith, "as often as he mentions the word faith here, he is not speaking according to the real sense of his mind; but is rather disputing against those, who falsely pretend that they have faith, of which they are altogether destitute."⁴ So again, Calvin is equating "a false profession of faith" with a false faith. But it should be obvious that, as the apostle Paul says, "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth one confesses unto salvation" (Rom. 10:10).⁵ The profession of faith is for 2nd-tense salvation, i.e. sanctification. And that is what James is talking about in James 2:14-26: not justification but sanctification. So "a false profession of faith" does not necessarily correlate to a false faith. Those are two different things; but Calvin is trying to equate them. Thus Calvin's argument is flawed, not only logically, but also biblically according to what Paul says in Romans 10:10: where he draws a distinction (a contrast) between believing with the heart (Rom. 10:10a), "but" (Gr. de) confessing with the mouth (Rom. 10:10b). Obviously someone could have a false profession and also a false faith, but it is not necessarily so. A person could have a true faith and a false profession about it, for example, if he or she is lying about it or denying Christ (as the apostle Peter did in Luke 22:54-62).

     3. Dead faith stinks. The stench proves it's real! I remember in high school, the classroom that was used for biology class always had a characteristically bad odor. It was the smell of deadness, and it came from all the dead animal corpses that were stored in the closets and the formaldehyde that was used to preserve them. The same is true in regards to dead faith. In James chapter 2, James says that "faith without works is dead" (Ja. 2:17). I can imagine God holding his nostrils in disgust! What are some examples of Christians who had dead faith? The carnal Corinthians are a case in point. The apostle Paul writes to them and he says: "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere [unsaved] men?" (1 Cor. 3:1-3, NKJV). In a letter to another group of believers, the apostle Paul says something similar. Writing to Christians in Rome, Paul says: "For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace" (Rom. 8:6, NKJV). As J. Vernon McGee has well said: "The flesh is death here and now."⁶ When a Christian is "carnally minded" or "fleshly minded," his or her faith is dead. That's what Paul is saying. So although dead faith stinks—it still saves! Listen to the words from Paul's divinely inspired pen: "If any man's work is burned up [Gr. katakaēsetai, i.e. no good works remain], he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet only so as through fire." (1 Cor. 3:15, NASB).⁷ Twist this Scripture to your own destruction, O ye Calvinists!

ENDNOTES:

¹ Lewis Sperry Chafer, Salvation (Findlay: Durham Publishing Company, 1917), p. 112.

² John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of James (Aberdeen: 1797), p. 48.

³ Ibid., p. 48.

⁴ Ibid., p. 48.

⁵ This particular rendering of Romans 10:10 is derived from Peter Stuhlmacher's commentary (Stuhlmacher, Paul's Letter to the Romans, p. 153). For more information see my article "A Free Grace Understanding of Romans 10:9-10" (FGFS, October 18, 2021).

⁶ J. Vernon McGee, Reasoning Through Romans, Part 1 (Pasadena: Through The Bible Books, 1981), p. 133, commentary on Romans 8:6.

⁷ The Greek word in 1 Corinthians 3:15 for "burned up" is katakaēsetai, from katakaiō. The word "signifies to burn up, burn utterly" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words); "to burn up; burn completely" (Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament). A. T. Robertson writes: "katakaiō, to burn down, old verb. Note perfective use of preposition kata, shall be burned down. We usually say 'burned up,' and that is true also, burned up in smoke." (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 98, commentary on 1 Cor. 3:15.)