The Gospel According to Galatians: How Abraham Was Saved By Grace

Last night my wife couldn't sleep, so she began reading through the book of Galatians. Let me just pause there for a moment and say that it's amazing what a person can learn just from reading the Bible! It reminds me of a quote that I read somewhere that said: "A person can learn more from reading their Bible at the kitchen table than by going to a college seminary." There's quite a bit of truth in that statement! Because in regards to my wife's experience of reading through the book of Galatians, she came to a profound realization. As she told me about it the next day, she exclaimed: "We've been under grace since the beginning!" Some people might be tempted to think that grace is only a New Testament concept. But in the book of Galatians, the apostle Paul tells us otherwise. Abraham was saved by grace all the way back in Genesis! In Galatians 3:17, Paul explains that the Law came 430 years after Abraham! Abraham was not saved by committing to do things for God (as in "Lordship Salvation"¹). Rather, Abraham simply believed God's Word (see Genesis 15:6; Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6).

The Law is by definition performance-based (see Galatians 3:12). But Christ redeemed us from a performance-based relationship (Gal. 3:13-14). And that's how God dealt with Abraham too: not according to performance, but according to grace! (See Gal. 3.) What do I mean? Let's take a trip back in time to the book of Genesis. In Genesis chapter 15, notice it says that God was the one who committed to do something for Abraham! So it was all about God's performance to keep His promise, not Abraham's performance nor promise. In theological lingo, what God promised to do is called "The Abrahamic Covenant" (see Gen. 15:7-21; first mentioned in Gen. 12:1-3). It was not a bilateral covenant where two parties agree to participate and each agrees to uphold their end of the bargain, but rather it was a unilateral covenant where God would do it all! Sound familiar? It should. Because this is exactly the type of covenant that God has promised us today in "the new covenant" (see Lk. 22:20): better known as "The New Testament". It's all about what Jesus did! When Jesus was dying on the cross, just before He died, He cried out: "It is finished!" (Jn. 19:30). What does this mean? Notice that Jesus didn't say "I am finished!" (which would be a cry of defeat), but instead Jesus shouted: "It is finished!" In other words, the work of salvation is completed. All the work necessary for salvation has been done! (See Psalm 22:31; Jn. 19:30.) The New Covenant is all about salvation by grace! That is, salvation by God's undeserved favor. "The Law was given through Moses, grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ" (Jn. 1:17, NASB). As the Bible says: "For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves [i.e. salvation is not of yourselves]; it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9). And that's exactly how Abraham was saved too: not by Law (which came 430 years later), but by grace!

Someone might ask, how were people saved under the Law? Dear reader, the Law was never a means of salvation! Rather, it was a means of condemnation. (See Rom. 5:20; Gal. 3:10, 3:19, NLT; Ja. 2:10.) Even under the Law, people were still saved by grace through faith (e.g. David in Psalm 32:1-2, which Paul quotes in Romans 4:6-8). So if your salvation is in any way related to your performance (performance-based) or following a code of conduct or a set of rules (works-based) -- then you are under a curse, not under grace. Are you tired of trying to live up to an impossible standard of righteousness that only Christ can achieve? He already did all the work necessary for your salvation! It is Christ and His righteousness alone that saves, unrelated to any human merit. I urge you, as the old hymn-writer has said: "Come to the cross, your burden will fall; Christ hath redeemed us, once for all!"²

"The Bible is a history of grace. From the story of creation, with which it begins, to the picture of last things, with which it closes, it is grace, grace, grace." —R. A. Torrey³

Endnotes:

¹ "Lordship Salvation" teaches that faith in Christ must be accompanied by a commitment to obey and follow Him as Lord in order to be truly saved.

² P. P. Bliss, "Free From the Law, Oh Happy Condition," Once For All (tune). Public Domain. 

³ R. A. Torrey, "Golden Text Homilies." Record of Christian Work (Vol. XX, 1901), Lesson II, on Romans 5:20, p. 517.

A Free Grace Understanding of Fruit vs. Works

Notice that I didn't say faith vs. works. I'm going to discuss fruit verses works.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience..." (Galatians 5:22, ESV).

Outline:

I. A Key Statement: "Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Otherwise that person is not a believer. Every born-again individual will be fruitful. Not to be fruitful is to be faithless, without faith, and therefore without salvation." (Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation, 1989 edition, p. 45.)

II. "Fruit" is the more general category; "works" is the more specific category or classification.

    -- There can be some overlap.

    -- Think of fruit and works like two circles somewhat overlapping.

    -- Fruit can include works, but fruit is also spiritual qualities such as: love, joy, peace.

    -- All good works done by means of the Spirit are fruit, but not all fruit are good works.

    -- Some fruits are spiritual qualities such as the fruit of the Spirit.

    -- And not all good works are fruit; some apparent good works get burned up as worthless! 

    -- From a moral standpoint, good works can also be done by unbelievers.

III. Areas where there may be overlap and thus confusion:

A. Matthew 3:8 - "Bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance."
    -- Referring to spiritual fruit working itself out unto good works (cf. Lk. 3:8-14).

    -- Compare Luke 15:7, 10. Joy and rejoicing in heaven = fruit!

B. Matthew 7:16 - "You will know them by their fruits."
    -- This fruit is outward, visible, and recognizable.

C. John 15:8 - "Bear much fruit and thus prove to be My disciples."
     -- Examples include keeping Christ's commandments (15:10) and "joy" (15:11).

D. Parable of the soils (Matthew 13:1-23; Mark 4:1-20; Luke 8:4-15)
     -- Some seed bears much fruit; this likely includes good works.

IV. Good works can be done by believers and unbelievers alike!
      -- Thus not all "good works" are fruit. Notice the following examples:

    A.) Isaiah 64:6 - "All our righteous deeds are like filthy rags."

          -- This is referring to a legal or moral external righteousness (cf. Rom. 3:20).

    B.) Matthew 7:22 - "Lord, Lord, did we not do many wonderful works?" 

    C.) Titus 3:5 - "Not by works of righteousness which we have done."

          -- Compare Philippians 3:9.

V. Clear Scriptures pertaining specifically either to fruit or works

    A.) Fruit

         1. Luke 8:13 - The seed which fell on the rocky soil are those who "receive the word with joy."
             -- Compare Mark 4:16. 

             -- Joy is a fruit of the Spirit (cf. Gal. 5:22).

             -- These people are saved because only a believer can have the fruit of the Spirit.

             -- The unsaved do not have the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6).

         2. Romans 5:1 - "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God."

             -- This is true of all believers! Thus all believers have at least the fruit of "peace".

             -- John Calvin writes: "we have peace with God; and this is the peculiar fruit of the righteousness of faith." 

             -- See Calvin's Commentary on Romans, commentary on Romans 5:1.

         3.  Galatians 5:22-23 - "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience," etc.

     B.) Works

          1. Of The Saved:

              a.) 1 Corinthians 3:15 - "If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss..."
                   -- No good works stand the test, but the person is still saved! 

                   -- "But he himself will be saved, yet so as by fire" (1 Cor. 3:15b).

              b.) Revelation 3:1 - "I know your works...but you are dead."
                   -- This is spoken to believers! (See Revelation 3:2-3; cf. Eph. 5:14; Ja. 2:17.)
                   -- So believers can have an utter lack of goods works and still be saved.

         2. Of The Unsaved:

             a.) Matthew 7:22 - "Lord, Lord, did we not do many wonderful works in your name?"
                  -- These people thought they had Lordship salvation, but they were deceived!

                  -- They never did the will of the Father by believing in Christ (cf. Jn. 6:28-29).

                  -- Unbelievers can do wonderful works in the Lord's name.

                  -- Unbelievers can do outwardly good things, but they remain unsaved.

VI. Conclusion:

      A.) All believers have spiritual fruit (Rom. 5:1).

      B.) Not all believers necessarily have good works (1 Cor. 3:15).

     C.) Some believers could have no good works and still make it to heaven!

           -- This is because eternal life is a free gift, not a reward (Rom. 6:23).

           -- The Bible says, "heaven is free" (Gal. 4:26, Worldwide English NT).

           -- Also see Revelation 22:17.

     D.) Salvation by grace is apart from works! 

           -- "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works" (Rom. 3:28, NASB).

Grace Goes To Ghana: Charlie Bing on "The Gift and the Prize"

A Free Grace Perspective on Parachurch Ministries

A reader of this blog recently asked me in the comments of another post what I thought about parachurch organizations such as the Free Grace Alliance? This is a great question! Here's the response that I gave to the individual who asked me about it, and I trust it will be a help to others as well. So here's the comment, followed by my response. The questioner says: 

"What do you think of open-tent alliances like the Free Grace Alliance? I myself don't have anything specifically against the people working for the FGA, however I remain somewhat reserved in the broadness of the coalition, since it does not require more than affirming Free Grace theology and the basic doctrines such as inerrancy and the trinity. However, what worries me is that such a narrow statement would allow extreme forms of punitive Bema/outer darkness, nondispensational views and such still within the alliance. 

What do you personally think of such parachurch organizations, and is it also common for DTS Free Gracers to be 'Independents', not technically part of any alliance?"

Just to answer the question generally before getting into more of the specifics, I would say that parachurch organizations can be good. Some people are against the whole idea of parachurch organizations because they are not the New Testament model, the local church is. But to me that thinking is flawed because there are a lot of things that are not specifically prescribed nor even described in the New Testament, but that doesn't mean they are bad or that they cannot be used by God. I mean, for example, the whole idea of "church membership" is nowhere found in the New Testament. Yet if I were a betting man, I would bet that those same people who are against parachurch organizations because they are not found in the Bible have no problem with church membership! They might say, "Well that's the point; church membership has to do with the local church. It's a function of the local church." My response to that would be to say, "Okay, let me give another example: gospel tracts. Does your church print them? Some churches do, but many do not. So guess what? A parachurch ministry printed your church's gospel tracts!" But those people who are supposedly against parachurch organizations apparently have no problem with getting their gospel tracts from a parachurch organization! I would also ask them: "And what about your church's missionaries? What mission agency are they going with?" It's probably another parachurch ministry, whichever mission board they choose to go with. "Oh, and what about all those books your pastor has?" Most if not all of them are probably printed by a Christian publisher or a Christian publishing house: all parachurch organizations! Oh, and here's the kicker: "Where did your church's pastor get his college degree?" A Bible school? A seminary? Another parachurch organization! You see what I mean? Unless these people live under a rock or do everything "in house" via their own local church (or another local church), they are obviously utilizing the services of parachurch organizations. Someone might say, "Well that doesn't make it right." Well, I would say, "That doesn't make it wrong either." You see what I mean? It's the same as a Christian liberty. One Christian has one view, and another Christian has another view. The Bible doesn't specifically address the issue. So just to summarize, parachurch organizations can be helpful. They should assist the local church, not replace the local church. Some examples of parachurch organizations would be:

1. Mission agencies / Mission boards
2. Christian colleges and seminaries
3. Christian book publishers
4. Evangelistic ministries (Evantell, GraceLife Ministries, etc.)
5. Pro-Life ministries
6. I'm sure we could add to the list!

So those are my thoughts just in general about parachurch organizations. I think each parachurch organization needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if it's a ministry that I could support or not and to see if it is upholding biblical values or not. I'm mainly thinking in terms of their beliefs and their practices in general. So for example, would you agree with their doctrinal statement? Are they accredited by the ECFA (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, another parachurch organization!) or a similar 3rd-party verification group? This is to make sure that the organization or ministry is operating in a financially responsible way and that it's not a scam. I think the argument that says "Parachurch organizations are not in the Bible therefore they are bad or unbiblical" is just not helpful because as I mentioned, there are a lot of things that are not specifically mentioned or addressed in the Bible but that doesn't make them wrong. That way of thinking is very superficial and really just legalistic because the people who say that or think that way are imposing a standard that is over and above what the Bible actually says. I think a more helpful way to think about it, or to approach the issue, is to ask if the parachurch organization's beliefs are biblical and are their practices in-line with biblical principles? And as I mentioned, 3rd-party verification of fiscal responsibility by a group such as the ECFA would also be helpful (though not absolutely necessary in my view). Those are just my initial thoughts about parachurch organizations to preface my response to your more specific questions.

You asked about what I think of "open-tent alliances like the Free Grace Alliance"? I don't have a problem with them necessarily and in fact I think they can be helpful, as I mentioned above. Provided of course that everything about the ministry checks out, as far as their beliefs and practices are concerned. For example: Do I agree with their doctrinal statement? Do I support their cause? Ask questions like that. And as far as a doctrinal statement goes, I don't have a problem with the parachurch ministry having a more general or concise affirmation of beliefs. I think everything I said would still apply. Namely, do I agree with whatever set of beliefs that they do have or that they do adhere to? Obviously you can tell more specifically what a parachurch ministry believes just by looking at who is on the leadership team and who endorses the organization, etc. So it's likely sort of obvious what the more specific beliefs are, even if they are not codified in an official statement. You said, "However, what worries me is that such a narrow statement would allow extreme forms of punitive Bema/outer darkness, nondispensational views and such still within the alliance." I would say you are correct, but that's just the nature of Free Grace Theology. That is not specific to the FGA. That is Free Grace Theology in general. I mean, I think every group is going to have elements in it that some people may not agree with 100%. I mean, if I remember correctly, even the disciples of Jesus were arguing about different things on various occasions! So I think it may be a little naïve to think that you can get away from that. That is just life in general, I would say. I would say those are more peripheral issues. That doesn't mean those things are not important, but I would say they are not the most important. I would ask: do we agree on the core issues? For example: the gospel of the grace of God, salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and not by works, the eternal security of the believer, assurance of salvation based on the promises in God's Word and not the believer's walk (behavior), rewards as a motivation for godly living, the judgment seat of Christ and the possibility that believers can have all their works burned up, the fact that God loves everyone not just the "elect," Christ died for all people not just the "elect," etc. Someone might say that is compromising on the other issues. I would say no, because you don't have to agree on those other issues: you can still hold your beliefs and not compromise them. Someone may say that's unity in error. I would say find me a church where everyone agrees with everyone 100% and you just identified a cult! As I mentioned previously, even the disciples of Jesus disagreed on certain things! That doesn't mean that should be a goal, but it is a reality. And to pretend that it's not is naïve and unbiblical. In regards to when you asked: "What do you personally think of such parachurch organizations, and is it also common for DTS Free Gracers to be 'Independents', not technically part of any alliance?" I would say that I think such parachurch organizations can be helpful. They can be helpful in spreading the grace message. They can be helpful in networking. They can be helpful in building up the body of Christ. Are they perfect? No one is perfect; so that's an impossible standard that no one and no church could ever meet. I'm sure you've heard the quip about how if you find the "perfect church" -- leave! Because once you start attending it won't be perfect anymore!

In regards to the question you had about is it common for DTS Free Gracers to be "Independents", I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. If you mean Independent Baptist, I would say it's not impossible. As I mentioned, Charles Ryrie was a Baptist as far as I know. I'm not sure what variety of Baptist. In his younger years, Ryrie was a member of the First Baptist Church in Alton, Illinois. He was the fifth generation of his family to be members there. Later in his life, Ryrie was a member of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas. (When I say that Ryrie was "a member" of those churches, I'm using the word "member" in the more general sense to signify that's where he went to church; I'm not saying he was officially a member of those churches, although he may have been and I would think probably was.) I'm not sure if he was officially a member of the FGA, but by all accounts he approved of it as far as I know. Consider that Ryrie was the 2008 recipient of the FGA's "Trophy of Grace" award. And he spoke at the FGA conferences. For example, Ryrie spoke at the 2015 FGA conference (which was just a year before he passed away). I would guess that if Ryrie was a featured speaker at the FGA conferences, he was also a member of it. Ryrie also wrote the Foreword to Charlie Bing's book Simply By Grace, which shows he approved of it. They were "on the same page" as far as Free Grace Theology is concerned. And by implication as far as the FGA is concerned as well. (Charlie Bing has been part of the leadership of the FGA for years.) Again, as far as I know Ryrie supported it. Whether he was specifically a "member" of the FGA or not, I'm not entirely sure. I'd have to do more research on that. But in light of everything I've said, it seems like a moot point because Ryrie obviously (or at least apparently) supported it. So those are my thoughts on that. I'm not sure if I entirely answered your question. But I would say yes, it's probably common for DTS Free Gracers to be "Independents", and not technically part of any alliance. I don't know if I represent the norm or not, but just to use myself as an example, I'm not officially part of any alliance. I'm not saying that I won't be or that I would never be, but currently I'm not. That doesn't mean I don't support it; I do support it. I support the cause they stand for and I support what they believe in. Pray about it and see how the Lord leads you. Maybe email Charlie Bing about it and see what he says. I hope what I've shared helps to answer your questions. If I missed something or if you want me to elaborate on something in more detail, just let me know. God Bless!

________

Editor's Note: This response is an updated and expanded version of my original comment. I provide a robust defense of parachurch organizations as a concept and then I apply those principles more specifically to the FGA. Here is a summary of those principles: 

1. Parachurch organizations are legitimate and helpful if they assist the local church.

2. Parachurch organizations should be evaluated on their beliefs and practices.

3. Specifically, do I agree with their doctrinal statement or their adhered-to beliefs?

4. Do they agree on the core gospel issues, even if there's diversity on "peripheral" matters?

Autos | Greek Mnemonics

Bill Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek Vocabulary Cards (2nd Edition):

28.) autos (αὐτός, -ή, -ό): he, she, it; him, her; they, them; same

Note that the different endings in parenthesis are different forms of the word, depending on the gender. The masculine is autos, the feminine is autē, the neuter is auto.

Mnemonics / Memory Aids:

A.) "They hire all sorts of people to work at the auto factory: he, she, it, him, her, they, and them. The boss told me himself! There are three buildings, but they all manufacture the same thing." 

B.) "An automobile is a vehicle that runs under the power of the 'same' vehicle. It isn't pulled by a horse. An autobiography is a biography written by that 'same' man, not another. An autotransformer transforms voltage using the 'same' winding, not two separate primary and secondary windings. And so on. In Greek, it refers to the 'same' person or entity just mentioned." (GarthDWiebe)

C.) Picture an AUTOmobile picking up everyone: Imagine a car (an "automobile") picking up a group of people: "he," "she," "it," "him," "her," "them." And they're all going to the same place. αὐτός is the vehicle for all these meanings. (Google Gemini)

D.) "Observe the autos. Art Icicle is close by in the rumble seat since the endings of αὐτός parallel closely the endings of the article." (Cullen & J. Lyle Story, Greek To Me, p. 61.)

E.) "Auto-matic transmission is what 'he' prefers." (Danny Zacharias, FlashGreek Lite) 

F.) The mechanic ordered the same auto parts for him, her, and it. (ChatGPT, adapted)

G.) They all drive the same autos to church. (ChatGPT, adapted)

H.) He fixed the automobile himself. (ChatGPT, adapted)

I.) They came to see it at the auto show. (ChatGPT)

J.) The auto club has the same members each year. (ChatGPT)

K.) An autodidact is self-taught. (Tanner Huss)

L.) "Ow, Taws! Mom, he hit himself with the same brick again!" (AWOL)  

D. L. Moody: Dead or Alive?

“O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”

~ 1 Corinthians 15:55, KJV ~

At the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago there is a museum area for visitors and passers-by to acquaint themselves with the history of the school. As a student, I frequently walked past the museum and still remember there on display a commemorative newspaper – reprinted from The World, New York, Friday, December 22, 1899 – in honor of the life of D. L. Moody. Splashed across the front page in large, bold letters were the words: “MOODY IS DEAD!” Somehow I think Moody would disagree. Notice what he says:

“Jesus Christ came into the world to destroy death, and we can say with Paul, if we will, ‘Oh death, where is thy sting?’ and we can hear a voice rolling down from heaven saying, ‘Buried in the bosom of the Son of God.’ He took death unto His own bosom. He went into the grave to conquer and overthrow it, and when He arose from the dead said, ‘Because I live, ye shall live also.’”¹

“My dear friends, if we are in Christ we are never going to die. Do you believe that? If sometime you should read that D. L. Moody, of East Northfield, is dead, don’t believe a word of it. He has gone up higher, that is all; gone out of this old clay tenement into a house that is immortal, a body that death cannot touch, that sin cannot taint, a body fashioned like unto His own glorious body.”²

Christ is risen from the dead

trampling over death by death

come awake

come awake

    come and rise up from the grave! ³

ENDNOTES:

 
¹ D. L. Moody, Moody’s Latest Sermons (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1900), pp. 21-22.

 

² Ibid., p. 22.
 

³ Matt Maher, “Christ is Risen.”

Luther Praises Erasmus: Recovering Biblical Repentance in Matthew 3:2

Several years ago, I painstakingly translated Erasmus's Annotations on Matthew 3:2 from the original Latin into English.¹ It took several hundred hours of intense research as I translated word-for-word through the entire text. It was during the coronavirus pandemic, and I had the time and the opportunity (Eph. 5:16), and thus I did so, to the glory of God. The Bible says: "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him" (Col. 3:17, NKJV).

Fast-forward to the present day. I was greatly excited when, just yesterday in fact, I came across a statement by Martin Luther from 1524 in which he praises Erasmus for his work in linguistics which enables us to better understand the Scriptures. Luther's praise for Erasmus is from a letter that he wrote to him in April, 1524. In the letter, Luther commends Erasmus with these words: 

"The whole world must bear witness to your successful cultivation of that literature by which we arrive at a true understanding of the Scriptures; and this gift of God has been magnificently and wonderfully displayed in you, calling for our thanks."² Luther no doubt means to signify Erasmus's work and erudition in the Greek and Latin, for as the church historian Philip Schaff notes, "his [Erasmus's] learning embraced only the literature in the Greek and Latin languages."³ 

While in this instance Luther's commendation was broad, historical records reveal that he specifically valued Erasmus's linguistic work on the critical concept of repentance, particularly from his Annotations on Matthew 3:2. The following statement by Luther is quoted by the 16th-century Roman Catholic theologian Ruard Tapper, in his "Response to Luther's Arguments". Tapper quotes Luther as follows:

"From Luther. 'Metanoia, which the old interpreter [i.e. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate] expresses as poenitentiam [repentance], it is called resipiscentia ['a coming to one’s senses'] or transmentatio ['a change of mind']: just as also Erasmus notes concerning chapter 3 of the gospel according to Matthew. Metanoeite, it is transmentamini [in Latin], that is, assume a different mind and perception, recover your senses, make a transition of mind and a Passover of spirit, so as to now be wise in heavenly things, instead of thus far you have been wise in earthly things [cf. Jn. 3:12-17]. Also Lactantius [in] book 6 of his Institutes informs, that poenitentia [repentance] in Greek is called Metanoia, that is resipiscentia. By no means therefore from use in sacred Scripture is repentance called sorrow, but a change of mind and [of one's own] judgment, and to repent is to be wise after an error, and to install a mind for right living.'"⁴ 

Similarly, in a letter to John Von Staupitz dated May 30, 1518, Luther writes about the Latin word poenitentia ("repentance"⁵), and says: "After this it happened that I learned – thanks to the work and talent of the most learned men who teach us Greek and Hebrew with such great devotion – that the word poenitentia means metanoia in Greek; it is derived from meta and noun, that is, from 'afterward' and 'mind.' Poenitentia or metanoia, therefore, means coming to one's right mind and a comprehension of one's own evil [i.e. sinfulness] after one has accepted the damage and recognized the error."⁶ In a footnote after the words "thanks to the work and talent of the most learned men who teach us Greek...[etc.]," the editors include a footnote that says: "Luther is thinking mainly of Erasmus, who published the Greek text of the New Testament with notes in 1516".⁷ Furthermore, at the end of Luther's statement on repentance quoted above, the editors say in another footnote: "Here Luther is apparently drawing on the explanation of the Greek word metanoeite, 'repent,' given by Erasmus in the Annotations to Matt. 3:2 in the 1516 edition of the Greek text of the New Testament".⁸ 

Luther's desire that "the whole world must bear witness" to Erasmus's "successful cultivation of that literature by which we arrive at a true understanding of the Scriptures" has come to fruition! By means of the internet, "the whole world" can now bear witness to the writings of Erasmus: particularly in regards to his Annotations on Matthew 3:2 and his understanding of the meaning of biblical repentance. Let us praise God this day for such great advances which make this possible. It reminds me of something that Daniel the prophet predicted, when he wrote that in the last days, "knowledge shall increase" (Dan. 12:4) -- in this case, the knowledge concerning biblical repentance and "a true understanding" thereof. What was once hidden in the halls of academia or in the dusty libraries of Europe, is now accessible worldwide, offering a clearer understanding of biblical repentance to all who will receive it. Praise the Lord! 

References: 

¹ Jonathan Perreault, "The Annotations of Erasmus on Matthew 3:2" (FGFS, July 12, 2020). 

² Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1910), 8 Vols., Vol. VII, p. 402. 

³ Ibid., p. 434. 

⁴ Martin Luther, quoted by Ruard Tapper in his book Explicationis Articulorum Venerandae Facultatis Sacrae Theologiae (Lovanii: 1555), 2 vols., vol. 1, pp. 181-182 [pp. 185-186 in some editions], brackets and bold added. Translated from the Latin by Jonathan Perreault. Note: This quote appears in a section of Tapper's book titled "Responsio Ad Argumenta Lutheri" which translated means "Response to Luther's Arguments". This statement by Luther is also cited by Melchor Cano (1509-1560) in his book Melchioris Cani Episcopi Canariensis (Matriti: 1774), vol. 2, p. 446, in the section titled "De Definitione Poenitentiae". Cf. Melchioris Cani Opera, Melchioris Cani Episcopi Canariensis (Matriti: 1760), p. 530, in the section titled "De Definitione Poenitentiae". For more information see the article by Jonathan Perreault, "The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians" (FGFS, May 28, 2021). 

⁵ The Latin word poenitentia has been unhappily translated as "penance" by the Roman Catholics. For more information, see the analysis by Charles Ellicott in his 2-volume work Delineation of Roman Catholicism, particularly when he writes the following: 

     "The first thing to which the notice of the reader is called, is some remarks on the use of the word penance or do penance, as translations of the Greek word metanoia, repentance, and metanoiete, repent. Romanists [Roman Catholics] consider the Latin word poenitentia, coming from poena, punishment, as always conveying the idea of penal or satisfactory punishments. But this term is not an exact rendering of the Greek word, which is derived from meta, implying change, and nous, the mind, and therefore signifies a mental or spiritual change. And consequently such a change has little to do with bodily austerities. There were, however, two Greek words employed to designate repentance, the one metameleia, signifying grief, sorrow, repentance, and the other the word mentioned above [metanoia]. These words are frequently used promiscuously [indiscriminately]; but when a difference was made, metanoia was the better word to express true repentance. The Latins also had two words. The Latins also had two words, poenitentia and resipiscentia; the latter being derived from re, again, and sapere, to be wise. It is indifferent which is used, provided they were taken in a sober sense. Poenitentia is used by the old Latin translation, and is most tenaciously retained by all who make the very life of repentance to consist in corporeal austerities, which, by way of eminence, they call penances. 

     Besides, the Latin, agite poenitentiam, is not so properly translated, do penance, as it would be by simply rendering it, repent. And to render the Greek word metanoia by penance is a perversion of its true meaning. John the Baptist preached, Repent, &c.; not, as the Rhemists [the followers of the Douay-Rheims Bible] have it, Do penance; because the people practised according to what he preached; as in the following exhortation, Bring forth fruit worthy, or meet, for repentance. Outward penal acts, then, are the fruits of repentance; they are not repentance itself. Again: Repent and be baptized, (Acts 2:38) not, Do penance and be baptized: for, 1. They were baptized the same day, and what time was there for doing penance? 2. Romanists make penance a sacrament, to be received after baptism; how, therefore, could they do penance before they had received baptism, the first sacrament? In short, no translation, can be more absurd and unhappy than that adopted by the Roman Catholics; and nothing but a false doctrine, and a great disregard for Scripture, could ever have induced them to have recourse to such an unphilological [unscholarly] rendering. But we have far more serious objections to their doctrine of satisfaction than a mere mistranslation, though it is one of the grossest departures from sober translation which the errors of men have produced." (Charles Ellicott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism [New York: Lane & Scott, 1851], Vol. I, p. 340, italics his, brackets added. Note: The Roman numerals in the original have been updated to the current format.)

⁶ Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Edited and Translated by Gottfried G. Krodel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), vol. 48, p. 66, bold added.

⁷ Gottfried G. Krodel, ed., Luther's Works, vol. 48, p. 66, footnote 6, bold added. 

 

⁸ Gottfried G. Krodel, ed., Luther's Works, vol. 48, p. 66, footnote 9, bold added.

A Response to "Free Grace Theology EXPOSED" (YouTube)

Here’s the comment I submitted in response to a YouTube video titled “Free Grace Theology EXPOSED” (by Matt Mason, Lion of Fire Ministries). I wrote: 

“You said that after salvation the Holy Spirit comes to live inside the believer, and that transformation leads to ‘a transformed life, to whatever degree.’ That statement of yours (that admission) disproves your entire premise that Free Grace theology is false, because think about it: ‘a transformed life’ to 1 degree is statistically zero!¹ (I’m speaking metaphorically to make a point.) That kind of change can’t distinguish a saved man from an unbeliever, except in the eyes of God alone. You brought up the example of Hitler. But based on the statement of yours that I quoted, he could be 99% evil and at the same time still be a saved man. That’s according to your own logic! I talk about this in more detail (not about Hitler specifically, but in general) in my blog post article titled ‘Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith, Pt. 1’. Thanks!”

Note:

¹ In other words, there’s basically no behavior change.

John MacArthur (1939-2025)

John MacArthur passed away last night. He was 86. I hope he was saved. If he was, it's sad that he went astray on the gospel. (MacArthur advocated the false teaching known as "Lordship Salvation".) I heard a YouTuber talking about MacArthur's passing, and he said that "there hasn't been anyone in the last 30 or 40 years that has been more influential on the Christian church [than John MacArthur]." Okay, but that doesn't mean he was right on the gospel. There's no doubt that MacArthur was influential. But I contend that he was a bad influence on the church as far as the gospel is concerned. Without question he was a skilled communicator, but unfortunately he was wrong on the gospel. 

If the apostle Paul were to preach at John MacArthur's funeral, I doubt he'd give him a nice eulogy, in light of the fact that MacArthur was a false teacher as far as the gospel is concerned. Instead of tickling people's ears (cf. 2 Tim. 4:3), I can hear Paul saying something like this to the congregation:

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ." (Galatians 1:6-10, ESV)

Bob Wilkin's "Right Answer" to the Gospel in 1988

I recently came across an article that Bob Wilkin wrote back in 1988. The article pertains to Matthew 7:21-23, particularly when Jesus says: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." What I found especially interesting about the article is that not only does Wilkin affirm the "change of mind" view of repentance, but he also clearly states that people must believe "the gospel" to have eternal life! Both of these points Wilkin now rejects. But back in 1988 he didn't. Let's delve into this in a little more detail.

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).

Papyrus 75 vs. The Majority Text: Which Got John 6:47 Right?

Here is how John 6:47 reads in Papyrus 75, an early 3rd century Greek manuscript: "[αμην] [α]μην λ̣[εγω] [υμιν] ο πιστε̣[υων] [εχει] [ζω]ην [αιωνιον]". Translated into English it reads: "Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who believes has eternal life".¹

So Papyrus 75 is an early witness to the original text of John's Gospel, and it does not contain the words "in Me" in John 6:47 (as does the Majority Text). But what does this have to do with Free Grace theology? Everything!

I saw one website that attributed all manner of heresies to the shorter reading of John 6:47, when Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who believes has eternal life." But I would contend that the shorter reading is only a problem for those who are fond of proof-texting the gospel and taking verses out of context, such as Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society. But for those of us who read Bible verses in context, the shorter reading of John 6:47 (without the words "in Me") poses no real problem at all. The surrounding context explains verse 47 sufficiently well so that it's obvious what Jesus is saying. 

Proponents of the Majority Text contend that the "new" Bible translations such as the NIV and ESV have removed words from the text, such as the words "in Me" from John 6:47. But actually, the KJV and the Byzantine Greek manuscripts upon which it is based are the "new" texts (!) compared to the older Greek manuscripts which do not contain the words "in Me" in John 6:47. Bob Wilkin attempts to get around this stubborn fact by saying, "The key is not the date of the manuscript, but the date of the manuscript from which it was copied and how carefully it was copied."² But this is nothing more than subterfuge ("an artifice or expedient used to evade a rule, escape a consequence, hide something, etc."), because to be consistent, Wilkin's line of reasoning must also be applied to the source copies! Thus even the source copies would be invalidated in favor of their source copies. In fact, in order to not be guilty of special pleading, Wilkin's logic would need to be applied consistently to ALL the NT manuscripts except for the original autograph, which is the only one that had no source copy. Thus Wilkin's logic collapses into a position where no manuscript is trustworthy unless it's the original autograph. My point is simply this: if the legitimacy of a manuscript depends not on its own date, but rather on the unknown date and quality of the manuscript from which it was copied -- then Wilkin just invalidated every manuscript ever found. That's not textual criticism. That's textual nihilism!

References: 

¹ Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), p. 585. Cf. Philip Wesley Comfort, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Kregel Academic, 2019), 2 Vols., Vol. 2, p. 92. Note: A transcription of P75 is also available online on The Nazaroo Files website. See the link here. 

² Bob Wilkin, "How Many Complete Greek New Testament Manuscripts Do We Have?" (January 10, 2023), GES Blog.

Bill Mounce's "Master Case Ending Chart"

I sort of geeked out on . . .

Bill Mounce's MASTER CASE ENDING CHART!!!

I wrote it on a paper napkin (see the pic below). It fits perfectly, so I thought why not? Sometimes you have to make do with what you got, right? The left column is case and number (singular, and then plural below). Then the next columns are 2, 1, 2: that's 2nd declension, 1st declension, 2nd declension; masculine, feminine, and neuter. Then 3rd declension is on the right. Then the rows top to bottom, starting on the left it's nominitive singular, genitive singular, dative singular, and then accusative singular. The plural is below. The dative plural in the 3rd declension is somewhat hard to read. It says: σι(ν). In English it's: sigma, iota, (movable nu). Enjoy!

A Free Grace Response to Bob Wilkin: Does John 6:47 Include "in Me"?

What is the correct wording of John 6:47 in the Greek New Testament manuscripts? Did Jesus say, “he who believes has eternal life?” or did He say, “he who believes in Me has eternal life”? Let's take a closer look!

Bob Wilkin recently posted an article on the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) website pertaining to this issue.¹ In the article, Wilkin describes why he thinks the original wording of John 6:47 in the Greek NT manuscripts included the words “in Me”. But what he conveniently fails to mention is that the oldest Greek manuscripts omit those words in John 6:47! This is a key piece of evidence, and the fact that Wilkin completely fails to even mention it makes it appear that he is being less than forthright with the facts. The closest that Wilkin comes to admitting that the oldest Greek manuscripts don’t include the words “in Me” in John 6:47 is when he writes the following:

“There are hundreds of manuscripts from what is known as the Byzantine text type that agree that in Me (eis eme) was in the original manuscript in John 6:47. This is called the undivided majority text.

Eight manuscripts omit in Me (p66, Aleph, B, L, T, W, Theta, and 892).

Several hundred manuscripts include in Me. Eight omit the words. Which do you think is more likely the original?”² (Answer: The oldest ones! I.e., not the Byzantine text type manuscripts.)

In response to Wilkin, the “hundreds of manuscripts” containing the words “in Me” in John 6:47 are all from the Byzantine text type. For those who may be unaware, this text type is of a relatively late date, generally dated from the 9th – 15th centuries.

By way of contrast, the oldest Greek manuscripts do NOT contain the words “in Me” in John 6:47. Wilkin mentioned some of them, but conveniently he failed to mention Papyrus 75 (P75), which is one of the very oldest Greek texts of John 6:47, and it does not include the words “in Me”. To illustrate the significance of this, let’s apply the same logic to another piece of literature, such as Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. So for example, imagine that I had 200 different copies of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (all from the 20th century) in which the first sentence reads: “Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this American continent...” (notice that the word “American” has been inserted into the text). In addition to these 200 copies from the 20th century (let’s say from the 1940s), suppose I had another 8 copies of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address from the 19th century (say, the 1870s) in which the first sentence reads, “Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent...” Which set of copies most likely contains the original wording of that sentence? Obviously it’s not so important how many copies there are that have a particular reading, what matters more is the date of composition. The oldest copies obviously carry the most weight and are most likely to have the original wording. And so, from this simple illustration we can see how Bob Wilkin’s logic is flawed when it comes to his view of John 6:47: Wilkin is merely looking at the number of copies rather than factoring in the date of the manuscripts. But when the date of the manuscripts is taken into account, it becomes apparent that this is a very important consideration which likely points to the correct wording! 

Here’s a summary statement that I wrote for the Free Grace Study Bible, pertaining to whether or not the original wording of John 6:47 in the Greek NT manuscripts included the words “in Me,” or if they were inserted at a later date. Notice that I focus not so much on the correct answer to this question, but rather on the fact of the question itself: that John 6:47 is (to quote Fred Lybrand) a “disputed text”! Here are my summary thoughts from the FG Study Bible on John 6:47 as it pertains to Bob Wilkin and the GES:

“The oldest Greek manuscripts of this text (e.g. Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, etc.) do not contain the words ‘in Me’. In these Greek texts, John 6:47 reads as follows: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who believes has eternal life.’ So the question is: ‘believes’ what? Related to Free Grace Theology, a distinct interpretation of John 6:47 has been prominently advocated by Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin of the Grace Evangelical Society. This verse, particularly in its longer textual form, serves as their favorite proof-text and the central tenet around which their ministry is built. But herein lies the problem: Hodges and Wilkin have constructed their entire ministry and theology of salvation not only on one proof-text, but more specifically on a variant reading of that proof-text! Thus their hermeneutic (their method of Bible interpretation) is doubly flawed, and is therefore rightly rejected. For more information, see page 21 in the article by Fred Lybrand titled: ‘GES Gospel: Lybrand Open Letter’.”

Addendum:

Wilkin poses the following question in his blog post: “Can a reading be so ‘natural and inevitable’ that it’s wrong?”³ But if we follow Wilkin’s logic of inserting words simply because they are theologically correct, we might as well insert the words of Jesus from John 3:16 as a probable (or likely) reading of John 6:47 merely because it reads naturally! But this of course is absurd, as even Wilkin would no doubt admit (unless he is willing to re-write the entire Gospel of John, or the entire Bible, for that matter).

References:

¹ Bob Wilkin, “Did Jesus Say, ‘He Who Believes in Me Has Everlasting Life,’ or ‘He Who Believes Has Everlasting Life’?” (June 23, 2025), GES Blog.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid.

Beyond the Billboard: Why John 3:16 Isn't the Whole Story

Sometimes I'll hear preachers say that all a person needs to hear in order to be saved is John 3:16. David Jeremiah even preached a sermon and said something to the effect that "these 25 words are all you need" (referring to John 3:16 in the King James Version). Just to be clear, I greatly admire David Jeremiah and I don't really fault him too much because I get the gist of what he's saying. And in a certain context what he's saying could be true. That is, if someone has already heard the gospel from somewhere else or previously in another context, and John 3:16 simply fills in the gaps or explains it in a way that the hearer can relate to and believe at that moment, then of course, if that's what brings them to salvation and they've already heard the gospel, then yes, John 3:16 is all they need to hear in terms of all they need to hear at that moment to bring them to a point of trusting Christ. But again, that assumes that they've already heard the gospel. Because if a person has never heard the gospel and all they see is "John 3:16" printed on a sign at a football game, that person might have no idea what it means! It's interesting that David Jeremiah even admits this, in that he says: "If you've watched sporting events on television you've seen John 3:16. In the NFL games, in the NBA games, people write that verse on a card, and they sit in the end zone and they hold it up so you can see 'John 3:16'. I'm sure a lot of folks wonder what that is. Because if you don't know God, if you're not a Christian, you wouldn't have a clue what that means!"[1] 

It is in this context of not hearing the whole story of the gospel that the apostle Paul says: “And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" (Romans 10:14b-15, KJV). Notice that in verse 15, Paul quotes from the Old Testament book of Isaiah (Isa. 52:7). Previously in Romans 10:8 he had quoted from the book of Deuteronomy (Deut. 30:14). Paul's gospel, as he says elsewhere, was "promised beforehand by God's prophets in the holy Scriptures" (Rom. 1:1-2). And so Paul wasn't preaching a "bare minimum" message, as some do today. (Such as, for example, those who try to squeeze the gospel into 25 words or less. By the way, isn't that quite an arbitrary standard? Because despite what some might think, the Bible wasn't originally written in King James English!) Instead, Paul is filling in the details and sharing the whole story. Commenting on Romans 10:8, William R. Newell affirms this when he says: "Now . . . came the simple word of faith preached by Paul. This expression, 'the word of faith,' involves the whole story of the gospel: that Jesus was the Christ, that He had come, died for sin, been buried, been raised, and been seen by many witnesses after His resurrection (1 Cor. 15.3-8)."[2] And so people need to hear the (whole) gospel message—not merely part of it—to be saved. That is Paul's point. And as William R. Newell stated, Paul's gospel message is found where? Not in John 3:16, but rather in 1 Corinthians 15! Dr. Charlie Bing of GraceLife Ministries affirms that the gospel "is laid out no more clearly than by Paul in 1 Cor 15."[3] Thus, for those of us who want to present the gospel as clearly as possible, 1 Corinthians 15 should be our primary focus.

Let me just pause here for a moment and reference an article that I previously wrote titled, "Getting the Gospel in Focus".[4] Because judging from what some evangelicals are saying, it seems as if they think the apostle Paul just went around quoting John 3:16 to everyone! But when we look at what the Bible says, we find something quite interesting. Because instead of preaching John 3:16, what the apostle Paul was actually preaching was "the gospel" found in 1 Corinthians 15! In fact, Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:11 that all the apostles were preaching that very same message! Not merely John 3:16, is my point. Here's a fitting illustration. In his book Sanctuary: Finding Moments of Refuge in the Presence of God, David Jeremiah shares the following true story in a daily devotional titled "DEFINING THE GOSPEL":

"Duncan McNeil, the Scottish evangelist, once said that in school he had a seminary professor who insisted on opening his theology classes with a question. No one could ever anticipate what the question would be. One day he said to his students, 'Gentlemen, can someone give me a definition of the gospel?' A student rose and read John 3:16: 'For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.' The professor said, 'That is a good gospel text, but it is not a definition of the gospel.' Another student read 1 Timothy 1:15: 'How true it is, and how I long that everyone should know it, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—and I was the greatest of them all.' Again the professor declined to accept it; he waited for what he wanted. Finally, a student stood and read 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, much to the professor's delight. It was evident that he had the reply he desired; he said, 'Gentlemen, that is the gospel. Believe it, live it, preach it, and die for it if necessary.'"[5]

There is also a very good article written by the late evangelist Dr. Sumner Wemp titled "The Gospel, The Good News," in which he highlights the need for sharing the whole story of the gospel from 1 Corinthians 15, not merely John 3:16. After emphasizing the importance of giving the gospel as found in 1 Corinthians 15, Dr. Wemp then turns to discuss John 3:16. And here's what he says: "Please think with me. People often say this is the greatest gospel verse in the Bible. This verse does not give the gospel. This was given before Jesus suffered and died for our sins. THINK, that lost man does not have a clue what it means that God 'gave his only begotten son' if someone has not already told him. Christians quote John 3:16 so glibly to the lost world and think, 'I gave him the gospel.' That man who holds up the sign at the football games with 'John 3:16' on it, surely thinks he is getting the gospel to all the world!"[6] But actually John 3:16 isn't the whole story.

Dr. Wemp goes on to say that at age 17, he still had not once heard the good news that "Christ died for my sins." This highlights the danger of proof-texting—quoting a single Bible verse and assuming we've shared the gospel simply because we recited John 3:16 to someone. It's well to note that even Jesus shared more than John 3:16 with Nicodemus (see John chapter 3). If we are truly to "follow in His steps" (1 Pet. 2:21; cf. Eph. 5:1; 1 Cor. 11:1), then we too must be diligent to present the gospel clearly and completely.

ENDNOTES:

[1] David Jeremiah, "John 3:16 Explained Like Never Before" (YouTube), timestamp: 5:25 - 5:48 min.

[2] William R. Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994), pp. 276-277. Note: This book was originally published in Chicago by Moody Press, 1938. Note: More statements by Newell to the same effect can be found elsewhere in his commentary on Romans. See in particular Newell's comments on Romans 1:16.

[3] Charlie Bing, "How to Share the Gospel Clearly" (bible.org).

[4] Jonathan Perreault, "Getting the Gospel in Focus," GraceLife Edition (November 2024).

[5] David Jeremiah, Sanctuary: Finding Moments of Refuge in the Presence of God (Nashville: Integrity Publishers, 2002), pg. 277.

[6] Sumner Wemp, "The Gospel, The Good News" (www.sumnerwemp.com, archived).

Allos | Greek Mnemonics

Bill Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek Vocabulary Cards (2nd Edition):

28.) allos (ἄλλος, -η, -ο): other, another 

Mnemonics / Memory Aids:

A.) Alas, another! 

B.) All us others are here. (Bill Mounce) 

C.) “All of us are just like each other.” Allos sounds like “all,” hinting at others of the same group or kind. (ChatGPT) 

D.) An allegory is a description of one thing using the image of another. (Bill Mounce) 

E.) In an allegory, one thing (the meaning or the message) is represented by ‘another’ thing, as in the fable of the tortoise and the hare. (Danny Zacharias, FlashGreek Lite) 

F.) All loss is a chance for another beginning down a different road with other outcomes. (Tanner Huss) 

G.) “He ordered all those tacos—another round, just like the first!” Use allos when ordering more of the same kind. (ChatGPT, adapted) 

H.) “Call Allos when you need another helper just like the first.” Imagine a company called “Allos Assistants”. (ChatGPT) 

I.) Allulose is a sugar that tastes like the other (real sugar), but without the calories—just like allos is the other of the same kind. (ChatGPT) 

J.) “We all lost the game to the other team.” Focus on allos sounding like “all loss” or “all of us.” (Google Gemini, adapted)

K.) “We all lost our minds when we saw the other side of the mountain!” A bit dramatic, but uses the sound of allos. (Google Gemini, adapted)

God's View of Lordship Salvation

"Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:22-23, KJV)

Note: The picture refers to The Great White Throne Judgment, which is described in Revelation 20:11-15. This is the final judgment of those who reject the work of Christ; they are judged according to their works. But even their best works "fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

One Way!

John 21:15-17: Understanding the Nuance of "Love" in Peter's Restoration

I recently came across an interesting discussion related to the different New Testament words for "love" on Bill Mounce's blog Monday with Mounce. In response to a blog post he wrote titled "Everybody needs a little love" (Monday, June 22, 2009), someone named Randy asked the following question in the comments: "I get the idea that you are saying that in John 21:15-17 agapaō and phileō are synonyms. If that is true way [why] was Peter grived [grieved] when Christ asked the third time, 'Peter, do you phileō me?' Thanks." 

Then someone named Jason Dempsey wrote the following reply, saying: "Verse 17 is testament to the fact that agapaō and phileō were being used synonymously by John. In verse 17, John writes, 'Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, 'Do you love (phileō) me?' In the written form, agapaō was used in the first two questions and phileō was only used for the last question. Why else would John write that Peter was grieved because Christ asked a third time if Peter loves (phileō) him unless John were using the two words [agapaō and phileō] to convey the same meaning?" 

But actually, it's not accurate to say that "Christ asked a third time if Peter loves (phileō) him". The Greek text is clear that in the first two questions (vv. 15-16), Christ used the word agapais, not phileō. Only in the third question (v. 17) does Christ use the phileō word for "love": Christ says to Peter, "phileis me?" That is, "Do you have brotherly affection toward Me?" This relates to the issue (stated by Mr. Dempsey) of whether or not it is accurate to say that the words agapaō and phileō are used synonymously in John 21:15-17, particularly in light of verse 17. Let's take a closer look! Here's what I found in my research, and what I wrote in response to Mr. Dempsey:

With regard to the question, "Why else would John write that Peter was grieved because Christ asked a third time if Peter loves (phileō) him unless John were using the two words [agapaō and phileō] to convey the same meaning?" — the answer is simple. In fact, you've already quoted the verse that contains the answer! It's surprising this wasn't noticed (or perhaps you interpret it differently).

The answer is found in the text you quoted from John 21:17, when John says, "Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, 'Do you love (phileō) Me?'" Notice that the text says, "the third time" (to triton) as opposed to "a third time". The use of the Greek definite article ("the" in English) is key; John says "the third time," not "a third time". John is simply drawing attention to the third question, not indicating that the same question was repeated three times. John uses the definite article ("the third time," to triton) to highlight the specific third question as a turning point; not suggesting that the same question was asked three times. Most English Bible translations reflect this nuance by rendering it as "the third time" (see John 21:17 in the KJV, NKJV, RSV, ASV, ESV, NASB, NIV, CSB, HCSB, Young's Literal Translation, the Geneva Bible, etc.). Commenting on John 21:17, the New Testament Greek scholar A. T. Robertson affirms, "These two words [agapaō and phileō] are often interchanged in the N.T., but here the distinction is preserved." (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. V, p. 321.)

Furthermore, the text of John 21:17 says: "He said to him the third time," not "He said to him again the third time" (as in the Lamsa Bible). It's important to understand that the Lamsa Bible is based on the Peshitta, a Syriac (Aramaic) version of the Bible — not the Koine Greek. The word "again" does not appear in the Koine Greek text of John 21:17. Interestingly, the word "again" doesn't appear in the Aramaic text either. (This can be confirmed by comparing other Aramaic New Testament translations that omit "again" in John 21:17.) George Lamsa inserted the word "again" as an interpretive flourish based on his understanding of the Aramaic idiom. It reflects his stylistic approach, not the actual wording of the Aramaic text. The fact that the word "again" is not in the Greek text of John 21:17 nor in the Aramaic supports the conclusion that the three questions posed by Christ in John 21:15-17 are not simply identical repetitions of the same question. While they share thematic overlap, they are not inherently synonymous.

I would be remiss if I did not close by drawing attention to a beautiful statement by William Kelly concerning Peter's restoration in John 21:17: "Peter abandons every thought of self and can find refuge only in grace." (Wm. Kelly, An Exposition of the Gospel of John [London: 1898], p. 446.)