The Free Grace Pastor Who Led Hulk Hogan to Christ

Dr. Lindstrom

I remember watching Hulk Hogan on TV back in the 90s when he was wrestling with the WCW. Every Monday I came home from school and turned on the TV to watch WCW Monday Nitro. Back then I didn't know if it was fake or if it was the real deal. To me, that's what made it more exciting! Hulk Hogan was my favorite wrestler; he was larger than life. One of the things that appealed to me about Hogan's persona was that, despite his rough edges, I always sensed that there was something good in his heart. Something else that I always appreciated about Hogan was his patriotism. Hogan loved his country, and he wasn't ashamed to wave the American flag and to speak out publicly about his beliefs. As everyone probably knows by now, Hulk Hogan passed away a few weeks ago. RIP Hulkster!

What many people may not realize is that Hulk Hogan was saved through a Free Grace ministry! I didn't know this either until recently, when I saw a YouTube video by Yankee Arnold about it.[1] In the video clip, Yankee talks about how Hogan got saved through the ministry of Pastor Hank Lindstrom. Then I saw another video clip on YouTube of Hogan being interviewed on the Joe Rogan podcast, and Hogan was talking about how when he was 14 years old, some of his friends convinced him to start attending a Bible "Youth Ranch" in the Tampa, Florida area near where he lived. Apparently, the youth group needed a guitar player, and Hogan liked playing guitar. So Hogan began attending this "Youth Ranch" with his friends, and that's where he met Pastor Lindstrom. In the podcast, Hogan explained how Pastor Lindstrom constantly drilled John 3:16 into his brain until one day it just made sense and Hogan understood that Christ died on the cross for his sins and if he would just believe that Jesus died for his sins he would not perish but have eternal life! And Hogan says he trusted Christ to saved him and that's how he got saved. It was through the ministry of Pastor Hank Lindstrom.

This is what Hogan said about it on the Joe Rogan podcast. Hogan put it like this: "I kind of like would go to a Southern Baptist church when I was a kid, because my Mom and Dad took me to church one time there, and I was hooked. My parents only went once with me, but it was close enough to my house where . . . I would go there to Ballast Point Baptist, so I was raised in a Southern Baptist church. And then when I started playing in a rock and roll band, when I kind of like got in junior high and stuff, I kind of like wasn't going to church at all, and a couple buddies of mine, who became ministers, they were twin brothers, Ron and Don Satterwhite, they asked me to come to Hank Lindstrom's Youth Ranch, because all the kids were there. It was like a Bible study thing, and Bible bros and all that stuff. And they would all sing, but they didn't have anybody to play guitar. So they knew I played guitar, so I went there and I played all the three chord progressions for the little Christian songs and stuff. And then this minister, Hank Lindstrom, he hit me hard with the John 3:16, 'God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes that He gave His Son will not perish but have everlasting life.' And I accepted Christ as my Savior when I was 14. But then I derailed, . . . kept playing music in rock n' roll bands and got way away from my faith, and then as the years went by, . . . I started seeing how things went, and it's got me to the point now where I'm locked back in. I'm locked and loaded, . . . after all the life experiences and, . . . seein' how people live, and what money does to people . . . okay, money makes it easier but it's not the live-and-die-all situation that some people say it is, you know? And it's just that relationship I have, not so much with religion, but with my Lord and Savior, is what I function on."

Notice that Hogan mentioned Pastor Hank Lindstrom as instrumental in his salvation. So I just want to give recognition to Pastor Hank Lindstrom, the man who led Hulk Hogan to Christ. Here is Pastor Lindstrom telling about it some years later. He said: "I took my daughter, a couple years ago, to a gym opening with Hulk Hogan. And we waited in this long line forever. [Then] we got to the front of the line and Hulk Hogan saw me (and I led him to Christ); he stopped the line and he pulled my daughter and I out of the line, and he grabbed us and took us over to the Macho Man, and introduced me as the man that saved his life. And the Macho Man looks at me, looks back at the Hulk, and said, 'This is the guy that saved your life?!' Here's the Hulk, you know, and here's the Macho Man, muscles everywhere, and Hulk really used it as a witnessing opportunity: he said 'Yes, this man beat John 3:16 into me for about three months.' And then he quoted it several times, 'For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.' [And Hulk said:] 'And finally it got through. And I trusted Christ. I was saved. And this is the man that saved me.' After that we walked over to the new gym owners, there was about three or four guys that I guess owned the gym, and this was a proud moment for them as they opened the gym, and Hulk said, 'I want you to meet somebody who's significant in my life: this is the man that saved my life!' And again, they looked me over like, 'Is this the man who saved Hulk Hogan's life?' And then he went through it again; he quoted John 3:16 again and said, 'Yeah, he used this verse over and over again with me, until finally it sunk in and I trusted Jesus Christ as my Savior. This guy named Hank Lindstrom beat him over the head with John 3:16.' And what is interesting is that he doesn't use all the lousy terminology that's out there: 'commit your life,' and 'join the church,' or 'surrender,' or 'turn around,' or 'repent' [in the sense of turning from sins or a behavior change], he simply said, 'I believed it, and I trusted Christ and I was saved.' So obviously if you're taught right [correctly] from the beginning, it seems like you're able to carry the right message through, and he never got corrupted by the bad terminology that's out there, which I was real tickled to death that after all these years he still had the [right message] ... John 3:16 and 'whosoever believeth' is the one that gets saved, and not all the other nonsense."[2]

This is interesting, because Pastor Lindstrom passed away in 2008. And I read somewhere online that Pastor Lindstrom may have told this story in 2006. And he said the incident happened "a couple years ago". This could simply be a generic way of saying "some time ago," almost like a placeholder for an unspecified duration of time. Or maybe Pastor Lindstrom forgot how many years had actually elapsed. Because when I searched online, I found a Tampa Bay Times newspaper article from August 16, 1993 with the headline: "Hulkster, other wrestling stars to shine at gym's opening". The first few paragraphs of the article read as follows:

"Hulk Hogan and other World Wrestling Federation stars will sign autographs and greet the public from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday at the grand opening of Gold's Gym-Aerobic & Fitness Center. The center is in Fashion Square Shopping Center on the northeast corner of Waters Avenue and N Dale Mabry Highway [in Tampa, Florida].

The new facility contains more than 15,000 square feet of state-of-the-art fitness equipment and will offer cardiovascular programs, professionally supervised training and a weight management program for weight loss or muscle gain."[3]

This is probably the event that Pastor Lindstrom was remembering. This becomes all the more likely because "Macho Man" Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan were estranged in 2003-2004 (and afterwards), and were publicly feuding. In fact, Randy Savage released a rap album in 2004 titled Be a Man. The title track was actually a "diss track" aimed at Hulk Hogan! So it's unlikely that the two men were at any public events together around that time. Eventually they did reconcile, but it was not until years later.

There is a parable that Jesus told in the Gospel accounts about a man who went out to sow seed. And in this case, that man was Pastor Hank Lindstrom. He sowed the good seed of the Word of God in the hearts (soils) of many, and one of them was Hulk Hogan. That good seed took root in Hogan's heart, and in time it grew into a beautiful planting (Isa. 61:3; Jn. 15:8; Eph. 3:17-18) that bore "much fruit". Only time will show the full impact that Hogan's testimony will have on this world! 

Pastor Lindstrom and the Hulkster have now gone to their eternal home, and are rejoicing together in the presence of their Savior. A fitting Bible verse that comes to mind in regards to both men is where Jesus talks about the seed that was planted in the good soil. Jesus tells His disciples: "And the seed that fell on good soil represents those who hear and accept God's word and produce a harvest of thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times as much as had been planted!" (Mk. 8:20, NLT). 

And so, the legacy of a faithful pastor and a transformed wrestling legend lives on, a powerful testament to the boundless grace of God.

Some Objections Answered:

Objection #1. "Mr. Hogan was in his second adulterous marriage. Holy Scripture warns that no adulterer will enter the kingdom of God." This objection echoes the vainglorious words of the Pharisee in Luke 18 who prayed to himself thus, "God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, swindlers, unjust, adulterers..." (vv. 9-12). But Jesus reveals that this man wasn't even saved! (See Luke 9:14.) Sadly, this same brand of self-righteousness is common in the church today. The objector is just another hypocrite who fails to understand that "The ground is level at the foot of the cross." No doubt the objector is referring to the sins/vices listed by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, and Ephesians 5:3-5, and by the apostle John in Revelation 21:8, 21:27, and 22:15 (incidentally, when John refers to those "outside," that is a reference to unbelievers; cf. Mk. 4:11-12; Jn. 12:31; 1 Cor. 5:12-13; Col. 4:5; Rev. 20:10). In each of these vice lists, those referred to are unbelievers, i.e. the unsaved (those "outside" of God's whole eternal kingdom in hell), in contrast to Christians who are said to be "washed," and "sanctified," and yes, also "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11) -- even though (and here's the key point) these Christians were still committing some of those same sins that the unsaved were doing! Thus, the comparison is not between those who do those sins and those who don't, but rather the comparison is between how God views the unsaved who practice those sins, versus how God views His children who practice many of those very same sins. God sees His children under the soul-cleansing blood of His Son, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world! (Cf. Exod. 12:13; Jn. 1:29.) In other words, although God obviously knows that His children still sin, He views them as judicially forgiven (Acts 13:38-39; Rom. 4:5-8; Eph. 1:7; Col. 2:13-14), and even perfectly righteous (1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21), in Christ![4] 

Objection #2. "Hogan said he 'accepted' Christ as his Savior, but the Bible doesn't use that terminology. Instead, it simply says 'believe'. Therefore maybe Hogan wasn't saved." This objection has been variously stated. For example, one person put it this way: "The term 'accepting Christ' is not a good term to use to describe receiving the gift of salvation and eternal life. The Bible gives us the perfect term - believe on the Lord Jesus Christ - to accurately convey salvation." Someone else went so far as to say: "Accepting the payment [of Christ] is a work." It should be noted, however, that both of these objections are false. Here's the statement I wrote in response to the individual who said that "Accepting the payment [of Christ] is a work." I said: "You may think so, but it's not a work according to Jesus in the Gospel of John. You mean well and I applaud your zeal for a free salvation, but it's not true that 'accepting' a gift is a work. Rather, to accept a gift is the same as to receive it. And of course, these are both synonyms for believing. Someone may say that the word 'accept' isn't found in the New Testament. That's false, by the way. But even if that were the case, that's like saying that the word 'Trinity' isn't found in the Bible so it's not true. Or that the word 'rapture' isn't in the Bible so it's not true. Those exact words may not be in the Bible, but the concepts (the ideas) are completely biblical. Furthermore, in regards to the word 'accept,' Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says that 'to accept' is one of the meanings of the Greek word lambanō, meaning: 'to take,' 'to receive,' or 'to accept'. This word is used many times in the New Testament, such as in Revelation 22:17, 'take the water of life freely.' This Greek word (lambanō) is also used in John 12:48 and in John 17:8. Bauer lists this as the meaning of the Greek word lambanō in these Bible verses: 'to accept as true, receive...something, figuratively...receive someone's words (and use them as a guide) John 12:48; 17:8;' (Bauer's Lexicon, 3rd edition, p. 584, definition 7). This is significant, because in John 12:48 Jesus says, 'He who rejects Me, and does not receive [or 'accept'] My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.' So Jesus is saying that in order to be saved from judgment, unsaved people must 'accept' His words as true! Similarly, in John 17:8, Jesus clearly uses the word 'received' (lambanō, 'to accept') as a synonym for believing. So if we are going to be honest with the biblical text, and more specifically if we are going to be honest with the words of Jesus Himself in the Gospel of John, we may need to change our thinking in regards to the word 'accept' (that is, the Greek word lambanō), and understand that it is a valid and biblical synonym for the word 'believe'."[5]

Objection #3. "Hogan stated that he got saved because of John 3:16. Doesn't this support the view of Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society, which says that a person doesn't need to know or believe in the facts of the gospel to get saved, as long as they merely believe in Jesus' promise of eternal life, that's saving faith? Thus, no knowledge or belief in the facts of the gospel are necessary for salvation." Let me illustrate the objection this way: A well-meaning but misguided person might say something like, "Aha! See! John 3:16 is all a person needs to know to get saved!" But that's like saying, "Acts 16:31 is the only information a person needs to know to get saved!" (For those who may be unaware, Acts 16:31 is where the apostle Paul tells the Philippian jailer to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.") I like how Yankee Arnold says that, "It's all you need to do, but it's not all you need to know."[6] This is an excellent distinction! Because the Bible says that the apostle Paul went on to tell the Philippian jailer and his family more information from God's Word (see Acts 16:32-34; cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-4/5). The same is true in regards to Hulk Hogan's experience. Obviously Hogan heard more information from Pastor Lindstrom than only John 3:16! Because Pastor Lindstrom preached the gospel from 1 Corinthians 15, not merely John 3:16. Furthermore, Hogan said that he grew up attending a Baptist Church on the corner near where he lived. I'm not exactly sure what they preached, but no doubt it was more than just John 3:16! And then at the Youth Ranch that Hogan started attending as a teen, he heard more of the gospel than just "John 3:16" there too. Are we really to believe that at the Christian Youth Ranch, they shared absolutely no other Bible verses with Hogan besides John 3:16? That's highly unlikely! It would be absurd to think that. Such a conclusion goes against everything we know about Pastor Lindstrom and his gospel message. For example, in a Bibleline article written by Pastor Lindstrom titled "A Relationship with Jesus?" (dated 8-24-2006 in the Audio Archive), Lindstrom says: "'For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (Romans 1:16).' We need to present the GOSPEL when witnessing to the lost, because the GOSPEL is the power of God unto SALVATION. We need to present the death of Christ as the payment for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection!"[7] So obviously Pastor Lindstrom shared other Bible verses with Hogan besides John 3:16; but Hogan was just focusing in on John 3:16 as the most significant one in his salvation experience.

References:

[1] Yankee Arnold, "Hulk Hogan Accepts Jesus Christ As His Savior" (YouTube), Yankee Arnold Ministries.

[2] Hank Lindstrom, "Hulk Hogan won to Christ by Hank Lindstrom" (YouTube), Jesus is Right.

[3] Sue Usberghi, "Hulkster, other wrestling stars to shine at gym's opening" (Tampa Bay Times), August 16, 1993.

[4] I discuss the vice lists in greater detail in the comments section of my blog post, "Is Repentance Sorrow for Sin? 10 Reasons Why It Is Not" (FGFS, February 18, 2023). See my comments there for more information. Another excellent resource on this topic is the article written by Dr. Charlie Bing, "Understanding the Vice Lists in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, and Ephesians 5:3-5" (GraceNotes, Number 96). Here's how a Hulkamaniac might say it: "Charlie Bing and I are tag-team partners for the gospel! Whatcha gonna do when Free Grace runs wild on you, brother?!"

[5] See Walter Bauer, revised and edited by Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd edition), p. 584, s.v. λαμβάνω, definition 7.

[6] Yankee Arnold, "No Cross – No Gospel!" (YouTube), Yankee Arnold Ministries.

[7] Hank Lindstrom, "A Relationship with Jesus Christ?" (Bibleline Ministries), emphasis his. Note: This teaching is dated "08-24-2006" in the Audio Archive.

Sharing the Gospel Clearly and Completely

I was just thinking about how it's common for people to do either one of two things with the gospel: 1) not share the gospel at all, or 2) if they do share it, there is a tendency to make it as short as possible. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that people only do these two things with the gospel; I'm just focusing on these two tendencies to illustrate my point. I also want to add that I don't necessarily have a problem with being concise when sharing the gospel. But in our efforts to be concise, what are we leaving out? We should strive to share the gospel not only clearly, but also completely.

In terms of Free Grace theology, Zane Hodges is a prime example of what happens when Christians go to extremes in their attempts to minimize the message. Over the years, his "gospel" (or what he called "the saving message") became smaller and smaller until even the central fact that "Christ died for our sins" was removed! This is truly a tragedy. And while many would rightly disagree with Hodges theologically, yet sadly they agree pragmatically! That is to say, in practice they share a message that, when examined closely, is found lacking vital truths "of first importance"! Here are the key facts that the Apostle Paul included in his gospel message: 1) Christ died for our sins, 2) He was buried, 3) He was raised, and 4) He was seen (see 1 Cor. 15:3ff). When was the last time you heard those four facts clearly presented in a gospel presentation? 

What I've found in my research, and also just from listening to Bible teachers in general, is that many today treat the facts of the gospel (listed by Paul in 1 Cor. 15) as "Too Much Information"! Some people may think I'm exaggerating. But if you're skeptical, I encourage you to do a little experiment. To verify it for yourself, just ask ten professing Christians what "the gospel" is by which a person is saved? If I were a betting man, I'd be willing to bet that less than half the respondents will include all the information that the apostle Paul includes in his declaration of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15. Sadly, many well-meaning but misguided Christians today view Paul's gospel as "Too Much Information". The words of A. B. Luter, Jr. are appropriate when he says: "Another significant concern of mission in regard to homiletics [i.e. the principles and methods used to prepare and deliver a sermon or message] has to do with what has been called 'putting the cookies on the lower shelf.' This refers to speaking with simplicity and clarity. Just as it is very common for preachers to add unnecessary complexity to their presentations of the gospel [as do those who preach 'Lordship salvation'], there is the opposite tendency to over-simplify [as do those who preach the 'crossless' and 'groundless' gospels]. It should be remembered, though, that there is a bedrock historical basis for the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-5) that is true (and, hence, must be articulated and believed) or 'our preaching is useless and so is your faith' (v. 14)."¹

Reference:

¹ A. B. Luter, Jr., Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2000), A. Scott Moreau, General Editor, p. 454, brackets added. For more information, see the article by Jonathan Perreault titled "Rick Whitmire on the Free Grace Gospel" (FGFS, October 19, 2024).

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

Last night my wife couldn't sleep, so she began reading 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 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 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; Rom. 4:1-16.) 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" (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. 4:15, 5:20; 2 Cor. 3:9; 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, discernible, and recognizable.

    -- In context, "their fruits" refers to the false prophets' teachings.

    -- See The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Moody Press, 1968), p. 941.

    -- Cf. Matthew 16:5-12, particularly verse 12.

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, 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.