Wilkin begins the article by answering a reader's question about Matthew 7:21-23 and whether or not "this passage teaches that one must submit to the Lordship of Christ to be saved." Wilkin correctly identifies this teaching as "Lordship Salvation". Lordship Salvationists use this passage to teach that Jesus is requiring people to live holy lives in order to get to heaven. They say that this is what Jesus meant when He spoke of the one who "does the will of My Father" (v. 21). But Wilkin outlines three biblical truths which highlight the flaws of the Lordship interpretation. Wilkin explains:
"There are several problems with this interpretation. First, God is perfect and one cannot enter His kingdom without becoming absolutely perfect (Isa. 64:6; Gal. 3:6-14; Heb. 10:1-18; James 2:10). Second, one cannot be said to have done the will of the Father unless he does it completely, 100%. To violate even just one of God's commands is to break them all (James 2:10). Third, even if these first two objections were not valid, this view leads to the unbiblical conclusion that no one can ever be sure that he is saved until he dies or is raptured. No one could ever know if he had obeyed enough. Yet the Scriptures are clear that the apostles knew with absolute certainty that they were saved and they wanted their readers to know this as well (Luke 10:20; John 13:10; Rom. 8:31-39; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 2:12-14, 25; 5:13)."1
Wilkin then proceeds to explain his view of the passage (which in this case is the traditional Free Grace view) and in particular what Jesus meant when He said, "he who does the will of My Father in heaven" (Matthew 7:21, NKJV). In short, this phrase simply means believe in Christ (cf. John 6:28-29). It does not carry the connotations of performance and holy living which have been introduced into it by Lordship Salvationists. Wilkin writes:
"There is another view as to what Jesus meant by the expression 'the will of My Father.' When Jesus spoke of doing the will of the Father to obtain kingdom entrance, He had one act of obedience in mind: believing the gospel. It is God's will that none should perish but that all should come to a change of mind [i.e. 'repentance'] about the gospel (2 Pet. 3:9). When asked the question, 'What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?' Jesus said, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent' (John 6:28-29)."2
Wilkin goes on to cite John 3:36 in support of his position, as well as the highly regarded Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich. Wilkin closes the article with a personal appeal to the reader, which is excellent. In the quotation below, notice how Wilkin specifies that "the right answer" for kingdom entrance (i.e. receiving eternal life) is not merely trusting in the person of Christ, but actually "what Jesus did for me upon the cross"! Here is "The right answer" to the gospel in Wilkin's own words:
"What would you say if you appeared before God and He said, 'Why should I let you into My kingdom?' Matthew 7:22 is the wrong answer. The right answer is, 'Lord, I am an unworthy sinner who has placed his complete trust upon what Jesus did for me upon the cross, and He promised that whoever believes in Him has eternal life' (Luke 18:13-14; John 3:16; Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5)."3
That was the right answer to the gospel in 1988, and it's still the right answer today. Have you believed it? If not, you can do so right now! As it is written: "Behold, now is the acceptable time, behold, today is the day of salvation" (2 Cor. 6:2, NASB 95).
References:
1 Bob Wilkin, "Not Everyone Who Says 'Lord, Lord' Will Enter the Kingdom" (December 1988), GES News.
2 Ibid., bold and brackets added.
3 Ibid. For more information, see the article by Jonathan Perreault titled "The Cross Under Siege" (FGFS, August 6, 2009).
6 comments:
This is not directly related to the article at hand, but I'd be interested in your opinion, as from a Free Grace perspective, what do you think of the IFB/Independendent Baptist movement? I quite recently visited an IFB church, and they tend to have often Free Grace-friendly beliefs without using that label. (As I did some research, almost all of the most famous IFB authors like Hyles, Rice and Hutson were basically Free Grace) The IFB pastor I personally met believed that Free Gracers are brethren, but they are often wary of parachurch organizations like the FGA due to generally being wary of open tent groups, as they believe in stronger forms of ecclesiastical separation.
I also knew another IFB person from a Free Grace view of salvation, but he also refused close affiliation with Free Grace organizations because of many other doctrinal distinctives which the FGA does not share. Independent Fundamental Baptists tend to believe that they have a physical succession from the beginning of church history, tend to be King James only or atleast TR-only, and emphasize personal standards like women not wearing pants and men not wearing shorts (although how rigid the standards are depend on the congregation). And I have noticed in some interactions is that DTS-influenced Free Gracers and IFB Free Gracers tend to get heated on those things.
But what I also found interesting is that Yankee Arnold and Florida Bible College seems to be like a "middle ground" between the IFB Free Grace and DTS Free Grace views. Yankee Arnold teaches many IFB-like doctrines like heavenly sprinkling of Jesus' blood, KJV preference, the physical incorruptability of Jesus' blood and such, however he does not seem to subscribe to the stricter doctrine of standards some IFBs hold to, and certainly not to Baptist successionism.
Yes, I would agree with your analysis. You made some excellent points; those are great insights. I'm not sure that I can add much to what you wrote, other than to share a few thoughts of my own to sort of piggy back onto what you said. I would say you pretty much "hit the nail on the head"! I especially liked how you made a distinction between DTS-influenced Free Gracers and IFB Free Gracers. I would say that Charles Ryrie would be a good example of a Baptist who was a DTS-influenced Free Gracer, not so much an IFB Free Gracer. Although he may have been both, I'd have to do more research to say with certainty on that. But just speaking generally and in light of his teachings and associations, I would say that Ryrie was more aligned with DTS-influenced Free Grace. He was not legalistic, as IFB churches and adherents tend to be.
By way of contrast, when I think of IFB/Independent Baptists, I think of people like Lou Martuneac. I don't want to make this about one man, but that sort of sums it up well I think. They are free grace friendly, though not necessarily "on board" with the Free Grace movement as a whole. David J. Stewart is another example. You mentioned Jack Hyles, John R. Rice, and Curtis Hutson. These also would be good examples of Independent Fundamental Baptists who are Free Grace friendly. I would say that they tend to emphasize ecclesiastical separation more than mainline Free Grace, or the Free Grace Movement in general. You noted this in your comments when you said that "they believe in stronger forms of ecclesiastical separation."
I would say that both groups oppose what is commonly known as "Lordship Salvation," although it seems to me that IFB Free Gracers are maybe not always as clear on the meaning of repentance or the correct response to the gospel as are DTS- or FGA- Free Gracers, such as Charlie Bing and Larry Moyer, for example. I know that some reviewers of the first edition of Lou Martuneac's book "In Defense of the Gospel" pointed out that his definition of repentance was sort of the Lordship view of it. And similarly, Pastor Kelly Sensenig is another example of someone who is Free Grace friendly (although not Baptist per se) but not always clear on the meaning of repentance. What I mean is that they fall prey to the Lordship definition of repentance, and so it's confusing because they claim to oppose Lordship Salvation but unfortunately at times they give the Lordship definition of repentance, which is cleaning up your life and turning from sinful behaviors. That's the definition of repentance that I'm talking about here. I know that the Grace Evangelical Society also gives that definition of repentance, but at least they are clear in saying they don't believe it's required for salvation. So they are not promoting Lordship Salvation. Whereas Martuneac and Sensenig unwittingly are, at times. To be fair, Martuneac corrected his statements on repentance in the 2nd edition of his book. I'm unaware if Sensenig has corrected his statement(s) on repentance or not.
[Continued below...]
In regards to Yankee Arnold, I agree with you that he does seem to be a sort of "middle ground" between DTS influenced Free Grace, and IFB influenced Free Grace. This may be the result of the fact that he attended Tennessee Temple University (a Baptist college) in Chattanooga, TN soon after he got saved. Then he attended Florida Bible College and graduated from there, as I understand it. I know he likes to poke fun at the Baptists in some of his sermons. I would say he's not a Baptist, but does hold to some of their beliefs such as KJV-onlyism (unless he's changed on that). To be fair, I would say that many Free Gracers that I've come in contact with prefer the Textus Receptus and by extension the KJV, although they are not KJV-only per se. But I think Yankee Arnold might be. At least that was the impression I got from listening to a few of his sermons about it. Again, maybe he's changed on that or maybe I misunderstood him. As I mentioned, many Free Gracers prefer the Majority Text/Textus Receptus, and by extension the King James Version. But from my experience I would say that most are not KJV only. Whereas maybe Yankee Arnold is. (Besides Yankee Arnold, I know of only one Free Grace teacher who is. Although of course there might be others.) By way of contrast, Charles Ryrie preferred the New American Standard Bible (the NASB). That is also my preference, although I do like the rhythm and cadence of the King James Version, and to a lesser extent the NKJV. And from my work in Bible translation, which admittedly is limited, the NASB is arguably a little closer to the Greek wording than the KJV. But getting back to Yankee Arnold, you are right. With the exception of possibly being KJV-only, he doesn't subscribe to the stricter doctrines that some IFB's hold to. And even if Yankee Arnold is KJV-only, if I remember correctly from what he said in one of his sermons about it, it is just his belief, he is not requiring that or imposing that on other people. I think he made a statement something to the effect that each person has to come to their own conclusion about it, which is fair.
[Continued below...]
I want to close by sharing some personal thoughts from my own experience, because growing up I attended several IFB/Independent Fundamental Bible-believing Baptist churches. (This is in contrast to, or at least in distinction to, the Free Grace church that I attended for several years when I was young, in which we all used the Ryrie Study Bible and the pastor would read the newsletters of the Grace Evangelical Society. That was back in about 1988 to the early 1990s. I'm not talking about that church in what I'm going to say.) But in regards to the IFB churches that I've attended growing up, they all were for the most part very legalistic. It reminds me of what Jesus said to His disciples about the Pharisees, He told them that they teach the Bible correctly but they are hypocrites. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice." (Matthew 23:2-3, ESV.) Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying IFB people aren't saved, they no doubt probably are; that's not my point. And I also understand that today we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, but we are now in the dispensation of grace. (In Matthew 23, Jesus was speaking in reference to the dispensation in which He lived, which was the dispensation of the Mosaic Law. See Galatians 4:4. Whereas today we live in the dispensation of grace.) My point is that the IFB churches that I've attended were in many ways bound by religion and bound by legalistic tendencies. You mentioned this in your comments when you said, "[they] emphasize personal standards like women not wearing pants and men not wearing shorts (although how rigid the standards are depend on the congregation)". In many ways, the focus in these IFB churches was on the externals and doing or not doing certain things, which in reality are Christian liberties, but they were prescribed do's and don'ts in these legalistic churches. Rather than being led by the Spirit (Gal. 5:16-18), church members were led by a dress code or by a set of church rules on matters of conscience. The clear implication was that if you wore a suit to church you were spiritual. It was legalism. And it was stifling. I remember during my first year of college at New Tribes Bible Institute (a Free Grace school), now Ethnos360 Bible Institute, it was like a breath of fresh air! It was like the shackles of man-made religion were removed and I was set free to live by the Spirit. It's hard to describe the feeling, but for those people who have had the same or a similar experience, you know what I mean. That's what the apostle Paul talks about in the book of Galatians. I think a lot of Christians today are Galatian Christians, and a lot of churches today are Galatian churches: they are legalistic. They are acting like "children of the slave woman" (Hagar) rather than "children of the free woman" (Sarah). Read the apostle Paul's words in Galatians 4:21-31. Paul furthermore says, "It was for freedom that Christ set you free, therefore keep standing firm and be not subject again to a yoke of slavery" (Gal. 5:1). Anyway, I just thought I would share a little of my personal experience since it relates to your question.
I hope that helps. Let me know if you want me to elaborate on anything in more detail. God Bless!
Yeah, I have met IFBs who take standards to an extreme (although the pastor I met was more moderate). But as I have been studying, I tend to find myself agreeing with many IFB doctrines, but some of those standards some hold make me uncomfortable, which is why I have been looking recently into the ministry of Yankee Arnold and also people like McGee who also tended to agree with IFB doctrines like heavenly sprinkling (he made a quite good defence of that doctrine, which convinced me despite knowing that it is a super controversial view) but did not teach those extreme standards. One thing that worries me about the mainstream DTS Free Grace movement is Robert Thieme's influence (who left many followers), as I read the writing "Bob Thieme on Christian living", I found many of his teachings like the "right pastor doctrine" (where he basically argued for a congregation not being able to question their pastor's teaching ever, and there are many references to this doctrine splitting up families and friends as those who disobeyed their "right pastor" were labelled reversionists by some of his followers), his doctrine of the soul which some have used to justify abortion (Thieme didn't himself advocate for abortion, but he denied it to be murder) and his view of the atonement, as he claimed that the physical death or sufferings of Christ were not a part of the payment for sin, but only his spiritual death. (I don't have a problem with the idea that Jesus suffered spiritually on the cross, but just like Walvoord I believe that both the physical and spiritual sufferings were of upmost importance). What I have though noticed that both the IFB and Florida Bible College side seems to be highly weary of those doctrines (I heard anecdotally from FBC graduates that A Ray Stanford outright banned Thieme's doctrines in the college). But what do you think of this issue? And how do you navigate differences within the DTS Free Grace movement when they touch major issues of atonement and salvation?
From my experience in Free Grace circles, I would say that R. B. Thieme's influence is weak at best. Even in DTS Free Grace circles, Walvoord took issue with many of his teachings, as evidenced by the paper you cited. So Thieme's teachings do not characterize nor do they represent DTS Free Grace, whereas Walvoord's teachings and influence does. I think you are right to be wary of many (if not most) of R. B. Thieme's teachings. That being said, I don't think his teachings are as influential nor as mainstream in DTS Free Grace circles as you fear or might suppose. (At least that is my perception based on my experience in the wider Free Grace movement.) Yankee Arnold is no fan of R. B. Thieme, I can tell you that. Instead, the theologian who probably most represents both DTS Free Grace and IFB Free Grace is Dr. Charles Ryrie. Both groups back his teachings and promote his books. Probably the same can be said of Walvoord, although probably to a lesser extent. It's just that Ryrie's Study Bible is so popular, as I'm sure you understand.
In regards to an IFB church, I'd say make sure you do some research on the front end and ask the right questions (as it sounds like you are), and if you can find the right one you should be okay. If you can find one that is more moderate and (shall I say) evangelical, that would be good. I don't want to say Evangelical Free, but just more evangelical, i.e. not so "baptistic" (if you know what I mean). You will probably get a sense of this just from looking at a church's website and more so by visiting it.
So in regards to your question about what do I think of this issue (about R. B. Thieme and his influence on DTS Free Grace and Free Grace churches), I would say you are right to be wary of Thieme's teachings, and it is definitely something to inquire about as you consider different churches, but I would say his influence was never very strong and is waning less and less as time goes by. For example, I have grown up in Free Grace circles and I rarely if ever saw any of his books, and never even knew who he was until relatively recently.
And as far as how do I navigate differences within the DTS Free Grace movement when they touch major issues of atonement and salvation, I would say always go back to the Bible (cf. Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30). This probably goes without saying, but it's a good reminder. But beyond that, what I do is I try to stick with the teachings of the "oldie but goodies" ("old" and "good" in a relative sense of course), i.e. I try to stick with the teachings of men such as D. L. Moody, C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord, and Charles Ryrie, just to name a few. (I mentioned Charlie Bing and Larry Moyer in my previous comments. And likewise you mentioned J. Vernon McGee. They are all solid Bible teachers.) The apostle Paul says, "Examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21).
Personally I would be wary of IFB churches, but if you can find one that is more moderate, you should be okay. I would say that is somewhat of a personal and individual choice, since Christians have different views on Christian liberties. For example, what one Christian might be comfortable with might be different from what another Christian might be comfortable with. Here I'm referring specifically to Christian liberties and matters of conscience, not core Bible doctrines such as the atonement. Of course, make sure the church is solid on the core doctrines of the Faith as well! This should go without saying. I would also say that some IFB churches particularly like Scofield and/or the Scofield Reference Bible. If you can find an IFB church like that, that's a good sign. Or if you can find an IFB church that promotes Ryrie's books, that's a good sign as well. It just indicates that they are, at least to a certain extent, Free Grace friendly.
But that's pretty much my thoughts on all that. If you have any other questions or want me to elaborate on anything further, just let me know. God Bless!
Post a Comment