Grace or Good Intentions? Pt. 2

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

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

Dogmatic Theology vs. The Bible

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

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

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

The Mosaic Law and Good Works

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

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

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

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

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

Roman Catholics and Salvation By Grace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith, Works, or Faith Plus Works?

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

The Bible on Grace vs. Works

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

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

ENDNOTES:

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

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

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

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