FREE GRACE FREE SPEECH

Q & A with Warren Wiersbe: "What is the Gospel?"

2011-11-09T20:21:00.017-06:00

As a well-known and trusted Bible theologian and scholar, and former pastor of Moody Memorial Church in Chicago, Dr. Warren Wiersbe is well-qualified to answer questions about the gospel. Let's see what he has to say about this most important issue. Commenting on the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15, Wiersbe writes:

"We should test everything by the truth of the Gospel. What is the Gospel? Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. He was buried and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. He was seen alive by many witnesses. If you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you will be saved. (See I Corinthians 15.)"[1]

"The good news of the Gospel is the good news about Jesus Christ, '...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen...' (1 Cor. 15:3-5)."[2]

"The gospel is the most important message that the church ever proclaims. While it is good to be involved in social action and the betterment of mankind, there is no reason why these ministries should preempt the gospel. 'Christ died...he was buried...he rose again...he was seen' are the basic historical facts on which the gospel stands (1 Cor. 15:3-5). 'Christ died for our sins' is the theological explanation of the historical facts. Many people were crucified by the Romans, but only one 'victim' ever died for the sins of the world."[3]

"The burial of Jesus Christ is as much a part of the gospel as is His death (1 Cor. 15:1-5), for the burial is proof that He actually died."[4]

"What gives us our firm footing? The gospel of Jesus Christ. (See 1 Cor. 15:1-5; Rom. 5:1-2; Gal. 5:1.)"[5]

ENDNOTES:

[1] Warren Wiersbe, "SANCTIFIED BY CORRECTION" (accessed November 9, 2011), bold added.

[2] Wiersbe, "J is for Jesus Part 1," (accessed November 12, 2011).

[3] Wiersbe, Be Wise (1 Corinthians), 164.

[4] Wiersbe, Be Comforted (Isaiah), 162.

[5] Wiersbe, A Gallery of Grace, 123.

Darby vs. Moody on Calvinism

2011-11-01T12:39:00.016-05:00

A couple weeks ago I started reading a biography of D. L. Moody's life titled A Passion For Souls, by Lyle W. Dorsett. I'm about 130 pages into the book, and this morning I was reading about Moody's first trip to England and how he was introduced to Charles Spurgeon, George Muller, and the Plymouth Brethren - John Nelson Darby among them. Concerning the latter, Moody was attracted to many of the Plymouth Brethren distinctives, but as time went on he became increasingly uncomfortable with some of their teachings, particularly the Calvinistic teaching of Limited Atonement. Dorsett gives the following details:

     Moody's initial love affair with the Brethren movement was inspired by their love for the Bible and their purposeful focus on reaching the lost for Christ. Therefore, Moody spent much time in Brethren assemblies on his [first] trip [to England in 1867], and he would invite many, including John Nelson Darby, to come to America and preach at the Illinois Street Church.
     Within a few years, however, Moody became uncomfortable with the Brethren. Not that he eventually swayed from his commitment to Scripture, premillennialism, missions, and evangelism, but he did find the increasingly separatistic views of the movement to be personally distressing and ultimately harmful to Christian unity. For instance, Darby was a staunch Calvinist who held unyieldingly to predestination and the doctrine of the elect. Increasingly, Darby unleashed verbal warfare against anyone who gave quarter to the Arminian and Wesleyan view that Christ died for all men and women. Moody was never a predestinarian, and as the years went by, his proclamation theology was like that of John Wesley rather than the one embraced by John Calvin (and Darby). Furthermore, while Darby wanted less and less to do with Christians who advocated clergy ordination, liturgy, and using women in ministry, Moody was seeking ways to unify all the denominations.
     Finally, Darby personally launched an ugly, verbal attack on Moody's "Arminian" views, arguing that he and most Americans, except for a few Presbyterians, did not know "the first principles of grace". Indeed, one day while doing a Bible reading time at Farwell Hall in Chicago, he and Moody had a verbal exchange on free will. The session ended when Darby, in disgust with Moody's emphasis on "whosoever will may come," [Rev. 22:17, KJV] closed his Bible and walked out; and he never returned.[1]

I find this information very interesting because I've attended Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, and I would say that most of the present-day students and faculty would probably agree with Darby on this issue, not Moody! The present-day Moody Bible Institute is "generally Calvinistic,"[2] while I'm not so sure that Moody himself was.[3]

I also find it interesting that in response to Moody's quoting of Scripture, Darby closed his Bible and walked away! This reaffirms to me that Calvinism really cannot stand up to the Word of God - in this case the simple truth that "whosover will, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17, KJV).

ENDNOTES:

[1] Lyle W. Dorsett, A Passion For Souls, The Life of D. L. Moody [Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1997], 136-137. NOTE: Moody was not an "Arminian"; neither was he a Calvinist. Instead, Moody held to a Biblical balance between the two positions.

[2] See the Moody Bible Institute "Doctrinal Statement".

[3] I am reminded of the following statement by D. L. Moody, which I taped to the outside of my dorm room door while I was living in Culbertson Hall: "But some say, Faith is the gift of God. So is the air; but you have to breathe it. So is bread; but you have to eat it. So is water; but you have to drink it. Some are wanting a miraculous kind of feeling. That is not faith. 'Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God' (Rom. x. 17). That is whence faith comes. It is not for me to sit down and wait for faith to come stealing over me with a strange sensation; but it is for me to take God at His Word." (Moody, The Way to God [Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1884], 51.)

The Clear Gospel of Early Christianity

2011-10-25T18:00:00.059-05:00

I recently came across a great article on the word "GOSPEL" while doing some research in Crowell Library at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. The article is written by Biblical Greek scholar Robert H. Mounce (father of William D. Mounce, another well-known Greek scholar), and it appears in Baker's Dictionary of Theology, edited by Free Grace theologian Everrett F. Harrison.[1] The entire article is very much worth reading, but in this blog post I'd like to highlight just a couple of sections in regards to the clear content of Paul's gospel. First, notice what Mounce says under the heading "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PAUL":

     "Paul's ministry was distinctively that of the propagation of the gospel. Unto this gospel he was set apart (Rom. 1:1) and made a minister according to the grace of God (Eph. 3:7). His special sphere of action was the gentile world (Rom. 16:16; Gal. 2:7). Since Paul accepted the gospel as a sacred trust (Gal. 2:7), it was necessary that in the discharge of this obligation he speak so as to please God rather than man (1 Tim. 2:4). The divine commission had created a sense of urgency that made him cry out, 'Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel' (1 Cor. 9:16). For the sake of the gospel Paul was willing to become all things to all men (1 Cor. 9:22, 23). No sacrifice was too great. Eternal issues were at stake. Those whose minds were blinded and did not obey the gospel were perishing and would ultimately reap the vengeance of divine wrath (2 Cor. 4:3; 2 Thess. 1:9). On the other hand, to those who believed, the gospel had effectively become the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16).
   Because Paul, on occasion, speaks of his message as 'my gospel' (Rom. 2:16; 2 Tim. 2:8), and because in his letter to the Galatians he goes to some pains to stress that he did not receive it from man (Gal. 1:11 ff.), it is sometimes maintained that Paul's gospel should be distinguished from that of apostolic Christianity in general.
   This does not follow. 1 Cor. 15:3-5 sets forth with crystal clarity the message of primitive Christianity. Paul, using terms equivalent to the technical rabbinic words for the reception and transmission of tradition (M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, Scribner's, New York, 1935, p. 21), refers to this message as something which he had received and passed on (vs. 3). In verse eleven he can say, 'Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.' In Galatians, Paul tells how he laid before the apostles at Jerusalem the gospel which he had preached. Far from finding fault with the message, they extended to him the right hand of fellowship (Gal. 2:9)."[2]

In the next section of the article titled "THE APOSTOLIC PREACHING," Mounce again draws attention to 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. Notice what he says:

     "If we wish to investigate more closely the specific content of the primitive gospel, we will do well to adopt the basic approach of C. H. Dodd (The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1936). While Dodd refers to the message as kerygma [i.e. preaching or proclamation], he is ready to admit that this term is a virtual equivalent of euaggelion [i.e. good news or gospel]. (Kerygma stresses the manner of delivery: euaggelion, the essential nature of the content.)
     There are two sources for the determination of the primitive proclamation. Of primary importance are the fragments of pre-Pauline tradition that lie embedded in the writings of the apostle. These segments can be uncovered by the judicious application of certain literary and formal criteria. While at least one [fragment of pre-Pauline tradition] purports to be the actual terms in which the gospel was preached (1 Cor. 15:3-5), others take the form of early Christian hymns (e.g., Phil. 2:6-11), summaries of the message (e.g., Rom. 10:9), or creedal formulae (1 Cor. 12:3; 1 Tim. 3:16).
     A second source is the early Petrine [i.e. Peter] speeches in Acts. . . ."[3]

In the statement above Mounce referenced C. H. Dodd and his book The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments. It will thus be helpful to observe what Dodd says in regards to the content of Paul's gospel. Dodd writes:

     "To begin with, Paul himself was conscious of a distinction between the fundamental content of the Gospel and the teaching which he based upon it. In 1 Cor. 1:23, 2:2-6, he recalls that at Corinth he had preached 'Christ and Him crucified.' He would now like to go on to 'speak wisdom among mature persons,' and regrets that the Corinthians do not show themselves ready for it.
   Again, in 1 Cor. 3:10 sqq., he distinguishes between the 'foundation' which he laid, and the superstructure which he and others build upon it. The reference is no doubt to the 'building up' of the life of the Church in all its aspects. But a study of the context will show that what was most particularly in his mind was just this distinction between the fundamental Gospel and the higher wisdom (not to be confused with 'the wisdom of men') which can be imparted to those whose apprehension of the Gospel is sufficiently firm. The 'foundation' is Christ, or, may we not say, it is the Gospel of 'Christ and Him crucified.' Paul himself, Apollos, and others developed this fundamental Gospel in various ways. The epistles represent for the most part this development, or superstructure. But Paul was well aware that what gave authority to his teaching was the Gospel which underlay it all.
   In 1 Cor. 15:1 sqq. he cites in explicit terms that which he had preached at Corinth:

'that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
and that He was buried;
and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures;
and that He was seen of Cephas . . .'

'It was thus,' he adds emphatically, 'that we preached and thus that you believed.' He then goes on to draw out certain implications of these fundamental beliefs".[4]

Biblical Greek scholars such as Robert H. Mounce and C. H. Dodd agree that the fundamental content of Paul's gospel is set forth in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 because that is what the Bible clearly says!

ENDNOTES:

[1] Robert H. Mounce, Everett F. Harrison (Editor-in-Chief), Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Associate Editor), Carl F. H. Henry (Consulting Editor), Baker's Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960). See the entry under "GOSPEL" on pages 254-257. NOTE: Everett F. Harrison is a well-known Free Grace advocate who debated Lordship Salvation with John Stott in 1959. For more information see the article: "Lordship salvation controversy".

[2] Mounce, Everett F. Harrison, Editor-in-Chief, et al., Baker's Dictionary of Theology, 256, bold added. NOTE: Mounce's article is also available online. See: "Gospel, Godspel, Godspell, Evangelion" (scroll down to the second section titled "Gospel").

[3] Mounce, Everett F. Harrison, Editor-in-Chief, et al., Baker's Dictionary of Theology, 256, bold added.

[4] C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1962), 9-10, bold added. NOTE: This book was originally published in London by Hodder and Stoughton, Ltd., 1936.

A FEW WORDS ABOUT GRACE - by William R. Newell

2011-10-17T19:30:00.004-05:00

A FEW WORDS ABOUT GRACE

The Nature of Grace

1. Grace is God acting freely, according to His own nature as Love; with no promises or obligations to fulfill; and acting of course, righteously - in view of the cross.

2. Grace, therefore, is uncaused in the recipient: its cause lies wholly in the GIVER, in GOD.

3. Grace, also is sovereign. Not having debts to pay, or fulfilled conditions on man's part to wait for, it can act toward whom, and how, it pleases. It can, and does, often, place the worst deservers in the highest favors.

4. Grace cannot act where there is either desert or ability: Grace does not help - it is absolute, it does all.

5. There being no cause in the creature why Grace should be shown, the creature must be brought off from trying to give cause to God for His Grace.

6. The discovery by the creature that he is truly the object of Divine grace, works the utmost humility: for the receiver of grace is brought to know his own absolute unworthiness, and his complete inability to attain worthiness: yet he finds himself blessed, - on another principle, outside of himself!

7. Therefore, flesh has no place in the plan of Grace. This is the great reason why Grace is hated by the proud natural mind of man. But for this very reason, the true believer rejoices! For he knows that "in him, that is, in his flesh, is no good thing"; and yet he finds God glad to bless him, just as he is!

The Place of Man under Grace

1. He has been accepted in Christ, who is his standing!

2. He is not "on probation."

3. As to his life past, it does not exist before God: he died at the Cross, and Christ is his life.

4. Grace, once bestowed, is not withdrawn: for God knew all the human exigencies beforehand: His action was independent of them, not dependent upon them.

5. The failure of devotion does not cause the withdrawal of bestowed grace (as it would under law). For example: The man in 1 Cor. 5:1-5; and also those in 11:30-32, who did not "judge" themselves, and so were "judged by the Lord, - that they might not be condemned with the world"!

III

The Proper Attitude of Man under Grace

1. To believe, and to consent to be loved while unworthy, is the great secret.

2. To refuse to make "resolutions" and "vows"; for that is to trust in the flesh.

3. To expect to be blessed, though realizing more and more lack of worth.

4. To testify of God's goodness, at all times.

5. To be certain of God's future favor; yet to be ever more tender in conscience toward Him.

6. To rely on God's chastening hand as a mark of His kindness.

7. A man under grace, if like Paul, has no burdens regarding himself; but many about others.

Things Which Gracious Souls Discover

1. To "hope to be better" is to fail to see yourself in Christ only.

2. To be disappointed with yourself, is to have believed in yourself.

3. To be discouraged is unbelief, - as to God's purpose and plan of blessing for you.

4. To be proud, is to be blind! For we have no standing before God, in ourselves.

5. The lack of Divine blessing, therefore, comes from unbelief, and not from failure of devotion.

6. Real devotion to God arises, not from man's will to show it; but from the discovery that blessing has been received from God while we were yet unworthy and undevoted.

7. To preach devotion first, and blessing second, is to reverse God's order, and preach law, not grace. The Law made man's blessing depend on devotion; Grace confers undeserved, unconditional blessing: our devotion may follow, but does not always do so, - in proper measure.

____________________________

Excerpted from William R. Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, 245-247. This segment is the same as the original piece except for the following changes: (1) "fulfil" has been changed to "fulfill"; (2) "I Cor. 5.1-5" and "11.30-32" has been changed to "1 Cor. 5:1-5" and "11:30-32"; (3) The numerical points have been aligned with the left margin instead of indented.

The Facts Which Constitute the Gospel

2011-10-09T15:44:00.028-05:00

"We set out not to study human creeds, but the Bible, and we agreed to let the Bible interpret itself and mean what it wants to mean." - B. H. Carroll, from "The General Foreword" to his classic set: An Interpretation of the English Bible.

B. H. Carroll (1843-1914), the late founder and first president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and author of An Interpretation of the English Bible, offers some keen insights in regards to "the facts which constitute the gospel." Carroll affirms that the biblical gospel includes the four facts of Christ's substitutionary death, burial, resurrection, and appearances. Notice what he says in his commentary on the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11:

     "This chapter commences with the statement of the facts which constitute the gospel. The first fact, 'Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures.' Three ideas are involved in that fact:
     1. Christ actually died. It was not a mere trance; it was actual death.
     2. It was a vicarious, substitutionary, expiatory death. 'He died for our sins.'
     3. He died for our sins 'according to the Scriptures' - that the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament up to the time of his crucifixion clearly foretold his actual, substitutionary, and expiatory death.
     The second fact in the gospel is that he was buried - he was dead and buried - and that was according to the Scriptures. The Scriptures testified that he would be buried. The third fact is that on the third day, according to the Scriptures, he rose from the dead; and the fourth fact of the gospel is, that risen, he was visible to men, recognized by men, and identified by men.
     Paul goes on to tell of the numerous appearances, including an appearance to him. He was buried, he rose again, he was visible after death with spiritual evidence, and his body was identified. In other words, John says, as if to anticipate many foolish statements, 'We don't know what we shall be, but we do know that when he comes we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.'
     The next thing that Paul presents is that this was not merely a preaching of his, but all the apostles preached it, as verse 11 of that chapter shows. And the next thought is that they did not originate it. He says, 'I have delivered unto you that which I also received, and you received it from me.' That was according to the sign which Christ submitted: 'He died, he was buried, and was raised.' The next argument that he makes is that every Christian in the days of the apostles believed what he said, 'As I delivered it, so you received it, and that so believing it, you are saved by it,' making it a doctrine of salvation."

________________________

Excerpted from B. H. Carroll, An Interpretation of the English Bible, 17 Vol. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), Vol. 13:246-247, bold added.

Note: This 17 volume set was first printed by the Fleming H. Revell Company in 1913. Broadman Press bought the copyright in 1942, and it was reprinted by Baker Book House in 1973.

An Invitation to Salvation

2011-09-30T17:07:00.034-05:00

Tim Nichols from Full Contact Christianity has posted a new blog article titled "Don't Give An Invitation!" and overall I think it's pretty good. While I'm hesitant to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" (as the saying goes) and completely do away with all gospel invitations in church - if for no other reason than I think that gospel invitations are inevitable when certain passages of Scripture are read in the assembly, i.e. an invitation is given by the Spirit when certain Scriptures are read - I agree that "in one sense" they are not the biblical thing to do. Nichols is correct to say that many gospel invitations actually confuse the gospel and encourage individuals to doubt their salvation. Nichols writes:

"To this day, many churches will close every service with an invitation to come forward and receive Christ as savior - and woe betide the minister who fails in his duty to deliver a stirring invitation. The practice poses an obvious problem: 'Salvation is completely free. You don't have to do anything but believe Jesus. If you'd like to do that now, get up out of your seat in front of everybody and walk down here.' Concerned that the practice confused people by asking them to perform a work (walk the aisle) in order to receive a free gift, many churches have done away with the altar call in its common form. However, a great number of churches still close every service with an invitation."[1]

Nichols is highlighting a common practice in many of today's churches. I've personally sat through a number of Billy Graham style altar calls, and I agree that they do NOT promote the clear gospel or the assurance of salvation! These invitations tend to confuse the gospel message because salvation is in effect conditioned on walking an aisle, praying a prayer, or dedicating one's life to Christ. How contrary to the message of the Bible where the offer is simply look and live! One of the classic texts in this regard is found in the Old Testament book of Numbers, chapter 21, when it says:

"And the LORD [i.e. Yahweh or Jehovah, and so throughout] sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. So the people came to Moses and said, 'We have sinned, because we have spoken against the LORD and you; intercede with the LORD, that He may remove the serpents from us.' And Moses interceded for the people. Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he shall live.' And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived." (Numbers 21:6-9, NASB)

In the Gospel of John, Jesus uses this account from Numbers 21 to illustrate how to receive eternal life. Jesus declares:

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten [i.e. one-of-a-kind] Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." (John 3:14-17, NKJV)

Zane Hodges writes: "Jesus means to say, He Himself will be lifted up on the cross, and the one who looks to Him in faith will live....So, in John 3, the issue is faith, or confidence, in Christ for eternal life. Will a man look to the Crucified One for eternal life, or will he not? The man who does, lives! By this very simplicity, the Gospel confronts and refutes all its contemporary distortions."[2]

The unsaved don't have to drag themselves down an aisle to receive eternal life, they simply have to look to "the Son of Man lifted up" (John 3:14).[3] Look to Him in faith and live!

ENDNOTES:

[1] Nichols, "Don't Give An Invitation!," Full Contact Christianity blog, September 18, 2011 (accessed September 28, 2011).

[2] Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1992), 147, italics his, ellipsis added. NOTE: Unfortunately in his later years Hodges departed from his once orthodox beliefs about the gospel. For more information see the article "The Cross Under Siege by Zane Hodges".

[3] Also see: Jn. 12:32; 1 Cor. 1:17, 18, 23, 2:2, 15:3; Gal. 3:13.

Spurgeon on the Gospel: "How does Paul put it?"

2011-09-26T19:39:00.005-05:00

"Jesus Christ is the essence of the gospel: he himself is the good news, as well as the medium of it. The good news is that God hath sent his only-begotten Son into the world that we might live through him....Everything is brought out as a matter of fact arising from the actual life and death of the Saviour, and I am free to confess that I greatly admire this way of preaching the gospel. How does Paul put it? What was the gospel to him? Hear him: 'Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures; and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.' Thus, you see, Paul's body of divinity was the life and death of that only embodied divinity, the Lord Jesus. My brethren, always set forth the gospel in close connection with your Lord, fetching it, as it were, out of him."

______________________

Excerpted from C. H. Spurgeon, "The One Foundation," The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 25 (London: Passmore and Alabaster, 1880), 523-525, italics his, ellipsis and bold added.

Glad Tidings of God - by C. H. Mackintosh

2011-09-22T22:29:00.002-05:00

"GLAD tidings were announced to Abraham when it was said to him, 'In thee shall all nations be blessed.' Glad tidings were also announced when the angel proclaimed to the watching shepherds the birth of a Saviour, Christ the Lord, and the praises of the heavenly host rang through the heavens: 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.' In a fuller way still, glad tidings were preached after Jesus died, and rose, and ascended, as we have it in 1 Corinthians xv.: 'Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you....for I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures: and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures; and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve,' &c. There is also the gospel, or glad tidings, of the glory of Christ, which Satan labours to obscure, as it is written: 'In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.' (2 Cor. iv. 4-6.)

What was announced to Abraham was something to take place in the future. It was not an accomplished fact. It was something he could look forward to as a hope - a sure hope, no doubt, but only a hope. To us - to you, reader - something better is announced. It is the blessed fact of a present salvation, through Him who died on the cross, and who rose again for [literally, because of] our justification [cf. Rom. 4:25, NASB]. The facts announced in the gospel of our salvation are: -

Christ died for our sins.
He was buried.
He rose again the third day.
He was seen by many witnesses after His resurrection.
He is now a Man in the glory of God. [This truth is inherent in the 'glorious gospel'. See: 2 Cor. 4:4-6; 1 Tim. 1:11.]

Blessed facts announced to those who are lost! Facts of eternal importance to every ruined child of Adam!

Reader, are you a child of Adam? Then know that these are facts which deeply concern you for time and eternity."

_________________________

Excerpted from C. H. Mackintosh, "Glad Tidings of God," Things New and Old (London: G. Morrish, 20, Paternoster Square, 1889), Vol. 32, 184-185.

TRUTH AT A GLANCE

2011-09-10T11:13:00.001-05:00

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

(Ephesians 6:10-18, NIV)

"WHOSOEVER WILL" - A Poem by A. T. Pierson

2011-09-09T16:36:00.013-05:00

WHOSOEVER WILL

THE Gospel of Thy grace

My stubborn heart has won,

For God so loved the world

He gave His only Son,

That

"Whosoever will believe,

Shall everlasting life receive!"

"Shall everlasting life receive!"

The serpent "lifted up"

Could life and healing give,

So Jesus on the cross

Bids me to look and live;

For

"Whosoever will believe,

Shall everlasting life receive!"

"Shall everlasting life receive!"

"The soul that sinneth dies":

My awful doom I heard;

I was forever lost,

But for Thy gracious word

That

"Whosoever will believe,

Shall everlasting life receive!"

"Shall everlasting life receive!"

"Not to condemn the world"

The "Man of sorrows" came;

But that the world might have

Salvation thro' His name;

For

"Whosoever will believe,

Shall everlasting life receive!"

"Shall everlasting life receive!"

"Lord, help my unbelief!"

Give me the peace of faith,

To rest with childlike trust

On what Thy Gospel saith,

That

"Whosoever will believe,

Shall everlasting life receive!"

"Shall everlasting life receive!"

________________

A. T. Pierson (A. T. P.), "WHOSOEVER WILL,"

The Gospel Watchman,Vol. 13 (1881): 148.

In Defense of the Gospel, Part 5

2011-09-03T09:29:00.106-05:00

Continued from "In Defense of the Gospel, Part 4"

Question: Isn't Christ's resurrection appearance to Peter (1 Cor. 15:5) somewhat puzzling and mysterious? The Gospel accounts don't even tell of it, except to say that it happened (Lk. 24:34).

Answer: The Bible makes it clear that Paul was "always setting forth the truth plainly" (2 Cor. 4:2, NIV; cf. 1 Cor. 1:17). So which is it: is the truth of 1 Corinthians 15:5 "puzzling" or is it "plain"? The obvious answer is that the truth of 1 Corinthians 15:5 is plain, not puzzling or mysterious. Let us dwell on this statement for a few moments and consider the following five points in regards to:

THE CLARITY OF 1 CORINTHIANS 15:5

1.) The appearance to Cephas is placed first in Paul's list of appearances. In enumerating the appearances of the risen Christ (1 Cor. 15:5ff), the apostle Paul would hardly place a "puzzling" appearance first in his list of witnesses! Chrysostom is correct to say that the appearance to Cephas is placed first because he is "the most credible of all" the apostolic witnesses.[1]

2.) The appearance to Cephas is a simple statement of historical fact. That the risen One appeared to Cephas is a plain and simple truth. The early Christian theologian John Cassian affirms: "But 'doctrine' unfolds the simple course of historical exposition, under which is contained no more secret sense, but what is declared by the very words: as in the passage: 'For I delivered unto you first of all what I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day, and that he was seen of Cephas'".[2] Reverend Gwilym O. Griffith, (who was a student of B. B. Warfield, Charles R. Erdman, J. Grescham Machen and others at Princeton Theological Seminary and a former pastor of the Sixth Avenue Baptist Church, Brooklyn, NY) affirms the same truth. Quoting 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 he writes: "For 'brothers, I would have you know the gospel I once preached to you, the gospel you received, the gospel in which you have your footing, the gospel by which you are saved - provided you adhere to my statement of it - unless indeed your faith was all haphazard. First and foremost I passed on to you what I had myself received, namely that Christ died for our sins as the Scriptures had said, that He was buried, that He rose on the third day as the Scriptures had said; and that He was seen...' (I Cor. xv. 1-5 : Moffatt). This is Paul's gospel. In itself nothing could be clearer, more objective, less mystical, more insistent in its emphasis upon external and attested fact."[3]

3.) The appearance to Cephas is not the only one lacking details. The question under discussion implies a double standard because the questioner is singling out the appearance to Peter as "somewhat...mysterious" because "the Gospel accounts don't even tell of it" when the same could be said about most of the other resurrection appearances mentioned by Paul in the passage! For example, are we to conclude that Christ's resurrection appearance to the 500 brethren is mysterious as well? It is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament except by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:6. MacLeod affirms: "Paul's mention of 'the five hundred brethren' is especially noteworthy. This appearance is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament, but Paul seems to have personal knowledge of them and affirms that most were still alive at the time of writing. As Dodd observes, 'There can hardly be any purpose in mentioning the fact that most of the five hundred are still alive, unless Paul is saying, in effect, 'the witnesses are there to be questioned.'"[4] This is hardly "mysterious"!

4.) The appearance to Cephas focuses on Christ, not Cephas. The apostle Paul declares that "[Christ] was seen...." (1 Cor. 15:5, KJV). Even with the mention of "Cephas" (1 Cor. 15:5) and the clear emphasis on eyewitness testimony, the focus remains on Christ.[5] He is the grand subject of the glorious gospel: "Christ died...He was buried...He rose again...He was seen...." (1 Cor. 15:3-5, KJV). Let me be more specific: Christ alone is the subject of all four verbs in the sentence. Raymond F. Collins affirms that the "credal formula which [Paul] uses on 1 Cor 15:3-5 has Christ as its subject."[6] Harry A. Ironside makes an insightful comment on this issue. In reference to "Paul's Statement of the Real Gospel"[7], Ironside concludes: "And now the One who is alive forevermore (Rev. 1:18) is presented as an object for the hearts of His own. 'He was seen' [1 Cor. 15:5, KJV]; and the same apostle exclaims, in another place, 'We see Jesus!' (Heb. 2:9, KJV)."[8] The eye of faith beholds Christ alone - the Jesus of the historical gospel, not the Jesus of the imagination (1 Cor. 15:1-5; cf. Acts 2:22-32, 10:36-43, 13:26-39).[9]

5.) The appearance to Cephas reveals Christ. Paul says that the risen Christ "was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:5, NKJV; cf. Lk. 24:34-36, YLT; Jn. 16:16-22, 20:19-21:14). Christ was revealed (Acts 10:40-41, KJV; 2 Tim. 1:10). Now compare this truth with what is said concerning the death of Christ. In His substitutionary death on the cross, Christ was not seen! Christ was concealed. Notice what the Gospel accounts say:

"Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' that is, 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:45-46; cf. Psa. 22:2)

"And when the sixth hour had come, darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?' which is translated, 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?'" (Mark 15:33-34)

"And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, the sun being obscured...." (Luke 23:44-45)

The gospel truth is plain enough: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3) - but the event is shrouded in darkness and "mystery". Billy Graham affirms: "[Christ] came to die. And in His death there is something very mysterious that very few of us know very much about. When He died on that cross, God in some infinite, mysterious, and glorious way, took all of your sins, [and] laid them on Christ. He became sin for us Who knew no sin. And in that moment when He prayed: 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' A shadow passed between God and Christ. God took your sins and put on Him."[10] Similarly, J. Vernon McGee says: "Now if you will examine carefully the Gospel accounts, you will make the discovery that only a few, unrelated events that are connected with the crucifixion are given, and that the actual crucifixion is passed over with a reverent restraint. The Holy Spirit has drawn the veil of silence over that cross, and none of the lurid details are set forth for the curious mob to gaze and leer upon. It is said of the brutal crowd who murdered him that they sat down and watched it. You and I are not permitted to join that crowd. Even they did not see all, for God placed over His Son's agony the mantle of the darkness. And some sensational speakers, they gathered to themselves a bit of notoriety by painting with picturesque speech the minutest details of what they think took place at the crucifixion of Christ. Art[work] has given us the account of his death in ghastly reality. You and I will probably never know, even in eternity, the extent of His suffering. 'None of the ransomed ever knew, how deep were the waters crossed, nor how dark was the night that the Lord passed through, ere He found His sheep that was lost.'"[11] Thus, if anything is "mysterious," it's the substitutionary death of Christ, not His resurrection appearance to Cephas!

Not surprisingly, the question under discussion is common among those who deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. All the way back in 1879 the same idea of a spooky savior was advanced by J. P. Mendum and the infidel D. M. Bennett in their book Revelations of Antichrist, Concerning Christ and Christianity.[12] Notice what they say in their chapter on THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST: "The story of the Resurrection of Christ is a pitiful muddle. Each of the four Evangelists is at loggerheads with the rest, and all of them with Paul, the earliest writer....But who was this Cephas who first saw Christ? Why, Peter, of course, some will say, because Cephas was the name which John says Jesus gave to Simon, alias Peter....Well, supposing Paul's Cephas means Simon Peter (which no one knows) it is singular that none of the Evangelists confirm this appearance to Peter except Luke".[13] The authors go on to conclude that the resurrection appearances of Christ are nothing more than "spook stories"[14] and "ancient idle tales about a materialized Jesus".[15] In light of these anti-christian statements of unbelief it becomes evident that the question under discussion is nothing more than the whispering of Satan!

Actually, the only thing puzzling or mysterious in regards to Christ's resurrection appearance to Cephas (1 Cor. 15:5) is that someone would question such a plain and simple truth. No wonder the apostle Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4: "But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the SIMPLICITY that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted - you may well put up with it!"[16]

ENDNOTES:

[1] The statement by Chrysostom is as follows: "Ver. 5. 'And that He appeared to Cephas:' he [Paul] names immediately the most credible of all." (Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 38.) Cf. 1 Cor. 1:12, 3:22, 9:1-5; Gal. 2:9.

[2] Cassian, The Conferences of John Cassian, Part 2, Conference 14, Chapter 8, "Of spiritual knowledge". Note that following Cassian's statement quoted above, there is a footnote citing 1 Cor. 15:3-5 (see the previous link "Of spiritual knowledge," footnote 800).

[3] Griffith, St. Paul's Life of Christ, 165-166. Even Rudolf Bultmann (who did not believe that the resurrection of Jesus was an objective historical fact) was forced to admit that verses 1-11 of 1 Corinthians 15 "do represent 'an attempt to make the resurrection of Christ credible as an objective historical fact'". (See Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1202.)

[4] David J. MacLeod, "The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Myth, Hoax, or History?," The Emmaus Journal, Vol. 7, Num. 2 (Winter 1998): 183. NOTE: MacLeod introduces his remarks above by saying: "He [Paul] prefaces his list of eyewitnesses [in 1 Cor. 15:6-8] with what many scholars consider to be a very early Christian creed: 1) that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; 2) and that He was buried 3) and that He was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures; 4) and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve [1 Cor. 15:3b-5]. Following the creed, a summary of the basic tenets ('of first importance') of the Christian faith, Paul lists in chronological order ('after that...then...then...last of all') Jesus appearance to others: "After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also [1 Cor. 15:6-8]." (Ibid. 182-183, bold and ellipsis his.)

[5] James Denney has correctly stated that "no man can bear witness to Christ and to himself at the same time." (Denney, Studies in Theology, 161.)

[6] Collins, Studies on the First Letter to the Thessalonians, 340. There seems to be no real debate among scholars on this point. For example, Roy E. Ciampa writes: "Christ is the subject of all the verbs from v. 3b to v. 8 except for the two in the relative clause of v. 6b (regarding the five hundred witnesses)." (Ciampa, Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, 744.)

[7] Ironside, The Mormon's Mistake, or What is the Gospel?, 3. NOTE: Under the heading "Paul's Statement of the Real Gospel," Ironside includes the reference to "Cephas" in the gospel. (Ibid.)

[8] Ibid., 5. It must be remembered, however, that "Apostolic witness is...uniquely different from that of the witnessing church in later generations. This is the very point of Paul's citing the pre-Pauline apostolic tradition which he himself is able to endorse." (Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1201; cf. Acts 13:31-32; Eph. 2:20, NET; Heb. 2:3-4.)

[9] As one blogger has stated so eloquently: "Belief and trust in a Jesus of the imagination does not save." Free Grace theologian Warren Wiersbe affirms the basic historical facts involved in the gospel when he says: "First of all means 'of first importance.' The gospel is the most important message that the church ever proclaims. While it is good to be involved in social action and the betterment of mankind, there is no reason why these ministries should preempt the gospel. 'Christ died...he was buried...he rose again...he was seen' are the basic historical facts on which the gospel stands (1 Cor. 15:3-5). 'Christ died for our sins' is the theological explanation of the historical facts. Many people were crucified by the Romans, but only one 'victim' ever died for the sins of the world.' (Wiersbe, Be Wise [Colorado Spring: David C. Cook Publishing, 2010], 164, ellipsis and italics his.) Elsewhere Wiersbe similarly affirms: "The burial of Jesus Christ is as much a part of the gospel as is His death (1 Cor. 15:1-5), for the burial is proof that He actually died." (Wiersbe, Be Comforted [Colorado Springs: David C. Cook Publishing, 2009], 162.)

[10] Graham, St. Paul, Minnesota 1961 Crusade (27:42 minutes - 28:32 minutes). J. C. Ryle makes a similar statement when he writes: "In a word, St. Paul told the Corinthians that, when Christ died, He died as the representative of guilty man, to make expiation for us by the sacrifice of Himself, and to endure the penalty which we deserved. 'He bore our sins in His own body on the tree;' 'He suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.' 'He was made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.' (1 Pet. ii : 24; iii : 18; 2 Cor. v : 21.) A great and stupendous mystery, no doubt! But it was a mystery to which every sacrifice, from the time of Abel, had been continually pointing for four thousand years. Christ died 'according to the Scriptures.'" (Ryle, "FIRST OF ALL.," The Homiletic Review, Vol. 5, Num. 7 [April 1881]: 374.)

[11] McGee, Isaiah 53, Introduction, Part 1 (1:05 minutes - 2:38 minutes).

[12] NOTE: I'm not saying that the questioner's thinking is wrong because it happens to be associated with D. M. Bennett and the antichrist - that would be the logical fallacy of guilt by association. Instead, I'm saying that the questioner's thinking is wrong because it's not biblical. It contradicts biblical truth as I noted above (see 2 Cor. 4:2, NIV; cf. 1 Cor. 1:17). And it should be no surprise when unbiblical thinking finds company with those who are opposed to Christ and Christianity!

[13] Mendum and Bennett, Revelations of Antichrist, Concerning Christ and Christianity, 20, 25, ellipsis and bold added, italics his; cf. Ibid., 17-18.

[14] Ibid., 25, bold added.

[15] Ibid., 26.

[16] Cf. 2 Cor. 11:13-14

Forgiveness of Sins: What is It? - by C. H. Mackintosh

2011-08-30T22:00:00.008-05:00

"Oh! the blessedness; transgression forgiven; sin covered."[1] This truly is blessedness, and without this, blessedness must be unknown. To have the full assurance that my sins are all forgiven, is the only foundation of true happiness. To be happy without this, is to be happy on the brink of a yawning gulf into which I may, at any moment, be dashed for ever. It is utterly impossible that any one can enjoy solid happiness until he is possessed of the divine assurance that all his guilt has been canceled by the blood of the cross. Uncertainty as to this must be the fruitful source of mental anguish to any soul who has ever been led to feel the burden of sin. To be in doubt as to whether my guilt was all borne by Jesus or is yet on my conscience, is to be miserable.

Now, before proceeding to unfold the subject of forgiveness, I should like to ask my reader a very plain, pointed, personal question, namely, "Dost thou believe that thou canst have the clear and settled assurance that thy sins are forgiven?" I ask this question, at the outset, because there are many, now-a-days, who profess to preach the gospel of Christ, and yet deny any one can be sure that his sins are forgiven. They maintain that it is presumption for any one to believe in the forgiveness of his sins; and, on the other hand, they look upon it as a proof of humility to be always in doubt as to this most momentous point. In other words, it is presumption to believe what God says, and humility to doubt it. This seems strange in the face of such passages as the following, "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24:46, 47) "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace." (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14).

Here we have remission or forgiveness of sins (the [Greek] word is the same in the three passages) preached in the name of Jesus, and possessed by those who believed that preaching. A proclamation was sent to the Ephesians and Colossians, as belonging to the "all nations," telling them of forgiveness of sins, in the name of Jesus. They believed this proclamation, and entered on the possession of the forgiveness of sins. Was this presumption on their part? or would it have been piety and humility to doubt the forgiveness of sins? True, they had been great sinners, indeed in trespasses and sins - children of wrath, aliens and foreigners - "enemies by wicked works."[2] Some of them had, doubtless, bowed the knee to [the pagan god] Diana. They had lived in gross idolatry and all manner of wickedness. But then, "forgiveness of sins" had been preached to them in the name of Jesus. Was this preaching true, or was it not? Was it for them, or was it not? Was it all a dream - a shadow - a myth? Did it mean nothing? Was there nothing sure, nothing certain, nothing solid about it?

These are plain questions, demanding a plain answer from those who assert that no one can know for certain that his sins are forgiven. If indeed no one can know it now, then how should any one have known it in apostolic times? If it could be known in the first century, then why not in the nineteenth? "David describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." (Rom. 4:6-8) Hezekiah could say, "Thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back." (Isaiah 38:17) The Lord Jesus said to one in His day, "Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee." (Matt. 9:2)

Thus, at all times, forgiveness of sins was known with all the certainty which the word of God could give. Any one of the cases adduced above is sufficient to overthrow the teaching of those who assert that no one can know that his sins are forgiven. If I find from scripture that any one ever knew this marvelously precious blessing, that is quite enough for me. Now, when I open my Bible, I find persons, who had been guilty of all manner of sins, brought to the knowledge of forgiveness; and I therefore argue that it is possible for the very vilest sinner to know now, with divine certainty, that his sins are forgiven. Was it presumption in Abraham, in David, in Hezekiah, in the palsied man, and in numbers besides, to believe in the forgiveness of sins? Would it have been a sign of humility and true piety in them to doubt? It will, perhaps, be argued that these were all special and extraordinary cases. Well, it matters not, so far as our present question is concerned, whether they were ordinary or extraordinary. One thing is plain, they completely disprove the assertion that no one can know that his sins are forgiven. The word of God teaches me that numbers [of people], subject to like passions, like infirmities, like failures, and like sins as the writer and reader, were brought to know and rejoice in the full forgiveness of sins, and hence those who maintain that no one can be sure on this momentous questions, have no scriptural foundation for their opinion.

But is it true that the cases recorded in the holy scripture are so special and extraordinary as not to afford any precedent for us? By no means. If any case could be so regarded it is surely that of Abraham, and yet of him we read that "it was not written for his sake alone, that righteousness was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for [literally, because of] our justification." (Rom. 4:18, 25) Abraham "believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness." (Gen. 15:6) And the Holy Ghost declares that righteousness shall be imputed to us also if we believe. "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:38, 39) "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive the remission of sins." (Acts 10:43)

Now, the question is, what did the apostles Peter and Paul mean, when they so unreservedly preached the forgiveness of sins to those who listened to them? Did they really mean to convey to their hearers the idea that no one could be sure that he possessed this forgiveness of sins? When in the synagogue of Antioch, Paul said to his audience, "We declare unto you glad tidings,"[3] did he entertain the notion that no one could be sure that his sins were forgiven? How could the gospel ever be called "glad tidings" if its only effect were to leave the soul in doubt and anxiety? If indeed it be true that no one can enjoy the assurance of pardon, then the whole style of apostolic preaching should be reversed. We might then expect to find Paul saying to his hearers, "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that no one can ever know, in this life, whether his sins are forgiven or not." Is there ought like this in the entire range of apostolic preaching and teaching? Do not the apostles everywhere set forth, in the fullest and clearest manner, remission of sins as the necessary result of believing in a crucified and risen Saviour? Is there the most remote hint of that which is so much insisted upon by some modern teachers, namely, that it is a dangerous presumption to believe in the full forgiveness of all our sins, and that it argues a pious and humble frame of soul to live in perpetual doubt? Is there no possibility of every enjoying, in this world, the comfortable certainty of our eternal security in Christ? Can we not rely upon God's word, or commit our souls to the sacrifice of Christ? Can it be possible that the only effect of God's glad tidings is to leave the soul in hopeless perplexity? Christ has put away sin; but I cannot know it! God has spoken; but I cannot be sure! The Holy Ghost has come down; but I cannot rely upon His testimony. It is piety and humility to doubt God's word, to dishonour the atonement of Christ, and to refuse the faith of the heart to the record of the Holy Ghost! Alas! alas! if this is the gospel, then adieu to peace and joy in believing. If this is Christianity, then in vain has "the dayspring from on high visited us to give the knowledge of salvation through the remission of our sins" (Luke 1). If no one can have this "knowledge of Salvation," then to what end has it been given.

And let my reader bear in mind that the question before us is not whether a person may not deceive himself and others. This would be at once ceded. Thousands, alas! have deceived themselves, and thousands more have deceived others. But is that any reason why I cannot possess the absolute certainty that what God has said is true, and that the work of Christ has availed to put away all my sins? Men have deceived themselves. And therefore I am afraid to trust Christ. Men have deceived others, and therefore I am afraid that God's word will deceive me! This is really what it all amounts to, when put into plain language. And is it not well to have things thus put? Is it not needs, at times, to strip certain propositions of the dress in which legality and fleshly pietism would clothe them, so that we may see what they are. Does it not behove us, when men stand forth as the professed and authorized exponents of a sound and enlightened Christianity, to test what they say by the unerring standard of holy scripture? Assuredly it does; and if they tell us we can never be sure of salvation; and that it is presumption to think of such a thing; and, further, that the very utmost we can attain to in this life is a faint hope that, through the mercy of God, we may get to heaven when we die; we must utterly reject such teaching, as being in direct opposition to the word of God. False theology tells me I can never be sure, God's word tells me I can. Which am I to believe? The former fills me with gloomy doubts and fears; the latter imparts divine certainty. That casts me upon my own efforts; this upon a finished work. To which shall I attend? Is there a shadow of foundation, throughout the entire volume of God, for the notion that no one can be sure of his eternal salvation? I most fearlessly assert there is not. So far, from this the word of God, in every section of it, sets before us, in the clearest way, the privilege of the believer to enjoy the most unclouded certainty as to his pardon and acceptance in Christ.

And, let me ask, is it not due to God's faithful word and Christ's finished work, that the soul confiding therein should enjoy the fullest assurance? True, it is by faith that any one can so confide, and this faith is wrought in the heart by the Holy Ghost. But all this, in nowise, affects our present question. What I desire is, that my reader should rise from the study of this paper with a full and firm conviction that it is possible for him to possess the present assurance that he is as safe as Christ can make him. If any sinner ever enjoyed this assurance, then why may not my reader now enjoy it? Is Christ's work finished? Is God's word true? Yes, verily. Then, if I simply trust therein, I am pardoned, justified, and accepted. All my sins were laid on Jesus when He was nailed to the cursed tree. Jehovah made them all meet on Him. He bore them and put them away; and, now, He is up in heaven without them. This is enough for me. If the One who stood charged with all my guilt is now at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens, then, clearly, there is nothing against me. All that divine justice had against me was laid on the Sin-bearer, and He endured the wrath of a sin-hating God that I might be freely and for ever pardoned and accepted in a risen and glorified Saviour.

These are glad tidings. Does my reader believe them? Say, beloved, dost thou heartily believe in a dead and risen Christ? Hast thou come to Him as a lost sinner, and put thy hearts full confidence in Him? Dost thou believe that He died for our sins, according to the scriptures, and that He was buried and rose again the third day according to the scriptures? If so, thou art saved, justified, accepted, complete in Christ. True, thou art, in thyself, a poor feeble creature, having an evil nature to contend with every moment; by Christ is thy life, and He is thy wisdom, and thy righteousness, thy sanctification, thy redemption, thy all. He ever lives for thee up in heaven. He died to make thee clean. He lives to keep thee clean. Thou art made as clean as His death can make thee, and thou art kept as clean as His life can keep thee. He made Himself responsible for thee. God sees thee to be what Christ has made thee to be. He sees thee in Christ, and as Christ. Therefore, then, I pray thee, tread no more those gloomy corridors of legalism, pietism, and false theology, which have resounded for ages with the sighs and groans of poor sin-burdened, and misguided souls; but seeing the fullness of thy portion, and completeness of thy standing in a risen and glorious Christ, rejoice in Him all thy days on earth, and live in the hope of being with Him for ever in His own mansions of heavenly glory.

Having thus sought to establish the fact that it is possible for one to know, upon divine authority, that his sins are forgiven, we shall now, in dependence upon the teaching of the Spirit of God, proceed to consider the subject of forgiveness of sins, as unfolded in the word, and doing so, we shall present it under the three following heads, namely: - First, the ground on which God forgives sins; secondly, the extent to which He forgives sins; and, thirdly, the style which He forgives sins. There is value in this threefold presentation, as it gives clearness, fullness, and precision to our apprehension of the object as a whole. The more clearly we understand the ground of divine forgiveness the more shall we appreciate the extent, and admire the style thereof.

May God the Spirit now be our guide while we ponder for a little,

THE GROUND OF DIVINE FORGIVENESS.

It is of the very last importance that the anxious reader should understand this cardinal point. It is quite impossible that a divinely convicted conscience can enjoy true repose until the ground of forgiveness is clearly seen. There may be certain vague thoughts respecting the mercy and goodness of God, His readiness to receive sinners and pardon their sins, His unwillingness to enter the place of judgment, and His promptness to enter the place of mercy. All this there may be; but until the convicted soul is led to see how God can be just and yet the justifier - how He can be a just God and yet a Saviour-God - how He has been glorified with respect to sin - how all the divine attributes have been harmonized, it must be a stranger to the peace of God which truly passeth all understanding. A conscience on which the light of divine truth has poured itself in convicting power, feels and owns that sin can never enter into the presence of God - that sin, wherever it is found, can only be met by the just judgment of a sin-hating God. Hence, until the divine method of dealing with sin is understood and believed, there must be intense anxiety. Sin is a reality, God's holiness is a reality, conscience is a reality, judgment to come is a reality. All these things must be looked at and duly considered. Justice must be satisfied - conscience purged - Satan silenced. How is all this to be done? Only by the cross of Jesus.

Here, then, we have the true ground of divine forgiveness. The precious atonement of Christ forms the base of that platform on which a just God and a justified sinner meet in sweet communion. In that atonement I see sin condemned, justice satisfied, the law magnified, the sinner saved, the adversary confounded. Creation never exhibited ought like this. There the creature enjoyed the manifestation of power, wisdom, and goodness; but the fairest fields of the old creation presented nothing like "grace reigning through righteousness"[4] - nothing like a glorious combination of "righteousness and peace, mercy and truth."[5] It was reserved for Calvary to display all this. There that grand and all important question, "How can God be just and Justifier?"[6] received a glorious reply. The death of Christ furnishes the answer. A just God dealth with sin at the cross, in order that a justifying God might deal with the sinner on the new and everlasting ground of resurrection. God could not tolerate or pass over a single jot or tittle of sin; but He could put it away. He has condemned sin. He has poured out His righteous wrath upon sin, in order that He might pour the everlasting beams of His favour upon the believing sinner.

"On Jesus' cross this record's graved,

Let sin be judged and sinners saved."

Precious record! may every anxious sinner read it with the eye of faith. It is a record which must impart settled peace to the heart. God has been satisfied as to sin. This is enough for me. Here my guilty, troubled conscience finds sweet repose. I have seen my sins rising like a dark mountain before me, threatening me with eternal wrath; but the blood of Jesus has blotted them all out from God's view. They are gone, and gone for ever - sunk as lead into the mighty waters of divine forgetfulness, and I am free - as free as the One who was nailed to the cross for my sins, but who is now on the throne without them.

Such, then, is the ground of divine forgiveness. What a solid ground! Who or what can touch it? Justice has owned it. The troubled conscience may rest in it. Satan must acknowledge it. God has revealed Himself as a Justifier, and faith walks in the light and the power of that revelation. Nothing can be simpler, nothing clearer, nothing more satisfactory. If God reveals Himself as a Justifier, then I am justified through faith in the revelation. When the moral glories of the cross shine upon the sinner, he sees and knows, believes and owns, that the One who has judged his sins in death, has justified him in resurrection.

Anxious reader see I beseech thee that thou apprehendest the true ground of the forgiveness of sins. There is no use in our proceeding to the extent and style, until thy poor troubled conscience has been led to rest upon the imperishable ground of forgiveness. Let me reason with thee. What is to hinder thee from this very moment, resting on the foundation of accomplished atonement? Say, does thy conscience need something more to satisfy it than that which has satisfied the inflexible justice of God? Is not the ground on which God reveals Himself as a righteous Justifier sufficiently strong for thee to stand upon as a justified sinner? What sayest thou, friend? Art thou satisfied? Is Christ sufficient for thee? Art thou still searching for something in thyself, thy ways, thy works, thy thoughts, thy feelings? Is so, give up the search as utterly vain. Thou wilt never find anything. And even though thou couldst find something, it would only be an encumbrance, a loss, a hindrance. Christ is sufficient for God, let Him be sufficient for thee likewise. Then but not until then, wilt thou be truly happy.

May God the Holy Ghost cause thee to rest this moment, upon an all-sufficient sacrifice, as the only ground of divine forgiveness, so that thou mayest be able to enter, with real intelligence and interest, upon the examination of the second point in our subject, namely,

THE EXTENT OF DIVINE FORGIVENESS.

Very many are perplexed as to this. They do not see the fullness of the atonement. They do not grasp the emancipating fact of its application to all their sins. They do not enter into the full force of those lines, which, perhaps, they often sing:

"All thine iniquities who doth

Most graciously forgive."

They seem to be under the impression that Christ only bore some of their sins, namely, their sins up to the time of their conversion. They are troubled as to the question of their daily sins, as if these were disposed of upon a different ground from their past sins. Thus are they, at times, much cast down and sorely beset. Nor could it be otherwise with them until they see that in the death of Christ, provision was made for the full forgiveness of ALL their sins. True it is that the child of God who commits sin has to go to his Father and confess that sin. But what does the apostle say, in reference to one so confessing his sins? "God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."[7] Now, why does he say, "faithful and just?" Why does he not say, "Gracious and merciful?" Because he speaks on the ground that the entire question of sin was gone into and settled by the death of Christ. Who is now up in heaven as the righteous Advocate. On no other ground could God be faithful and just in connection with the forgiveness of sins. The sins of the believer have all been atoned for on the cross. If one had been left out, he should be eternally lost, inasmuch as it is impossible that a single sin, however trifling, can ever enter the precincts of the sanctuary of God. And, further, let me add, if all the believer's sins were not atoned for in the death of Christ, then neither by confession, nor by prayer, nor by fasting, nor by any other means, could they ever be forgiven. The death of Christ is the only ground on which God could, in faithfulness and justice, forgive sin; and we know He must either do it in faithfulness and justice, or not at all. This is to His praise and our exceeding comfort.

But I can imagine my reader exclaiming "What! do you mean to say that my future sins were all atoned for?" To this I reply, that all our sins were future when Christ bore them on the cursed tree. The sins of all believers, for the last eighteen centuries, were future when Christ died for them. Hence, if the idea of future sins presents a difficulty in reference to what we may commit, if left here, it presents just as great a difficulty in reference to what we have committed. But, in truth, all this perplexity about future sins arises very much from the habit of looking at the cross from our own point of view, instead of God's - looking at it from earth instead of from heaven. Scripture never speaks of future sins. Past, present, and future are only human and earthly. All is an eternal now with God.

All our sins were before the eye of infinite Justice, at the cross, and all were laid on the head of Jesus the Sin-bearer who, by His death, laid the eternal foundation of forgiveness of sins, in order that the believer, at any moment of his life, at any point in his history, at any stage of his career, from the time at which the hallowed tidings of the gospel fall upon the ear of faith until the moment in which he steps into the glory, may be able to say, with clearness and decision, without reserve, misgiving, or hesitation, "Thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back."[8] To say this is but faith's response to God's own declaration, when He says, "Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more."[9] "Jehovah hath made to meet on him the iniquities of us all."[10] Let us, by way of illustration, take the case of the thief on the cross. When he, as a convicted sinner, cast the eye of faith upon that blessed One who hung beside him, was he not, then and there rendered fit to enter the paradise of God? Was he not furnished with a divine title to pass from the cross of a malefactor into the presence of God? Unquestionably. Did he need anything more to be done for him, in him, or with him, in order to fit him for heaven? By no means. Well, then, suppose that, instead of passing into heaven, he had been permitted to come down from the cross. Suppose the nails had been extracted and he allowed to go at liberty. He would have had sin in his nature, and having sin in his nature, he would have been liable to commit sin, in thought, word, and deed. Now, could he ever lose his title, his fitness, his meetness [for heaven]? Surely not. His title was divine and everlasting. All his sins were borne by Jesus. That which had fitted him to enter heaven at the first, had fitted him once and for ever, so that if he had remained on earth for fifty years he would, at any moment, have been equally fit to enter heaven.

True it is, if the pardoned sinner commits sin, his communion is interrupted, and there must be the hearty confession of that sin ere his communion can be restored. "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth."[11] But this is, obviously, a different point altogether. My communion may be interrupted, but my title can never be forfeited. All was accomplished on the cross. Every trace of sin and guilt was atoned for by that peerless [i.e. matchless], priceless sacrifice. By that sacrifice, the believer is transferred from a position of guilt and condemnation into a position of justification and perfect favour. He is translated from a condition in which he had not a single trace of righteousness, into a condition in which he has not a single trace of guilt, nor ever can have. He stands in grace, he is under grace, he breathes the very atmosphere of grace, and he never can be otherwise, according to God's view. If he commits sin - and who does not? - there must be confession. And what then? Forgiveness and cleansing, on the ground of the faithfulness and justice of God which have had their divine answer in the cross. All is founded on the cross. The faithfulness and justice of God - the advocacy of Christ - our confession - our full forgiveness - our perfect cleansing - the restoration of our communion - all rest upon the solid basis of the precious blood of Christ.

My reader will bear in mind that we are, at present, occupied with the one point, namely, the extent of divine forgiveness. There are other points of great importance, which might be looked at in connection, such as the believer's oneness with Christ, his adoption into the family of God, the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, all of which, necessarily, imply the full forgiveness of sins. But we must confine ourselves to our immediate theme, and having endeavoured to set forth the ground and the extent, we shall close with a few words on

THE STYLE OF DIVINE FORGIVENESS.

We are all conscious of how much depends upon the style of an action. Indeed, there is frequently far more power in the style than in the substance. How often have we heard such words as these: "Yes, I own he did me a favour; but, then, he did it in such a way as to take away all the good of it." Now, the Lord has His style of doing things, blessed by His name. He not only does great things, but He does them in such a way as to convince us that His heart is in the doing of them. Not only is the substance of His acts good, but the style most charming.

Let us have a sample or two. Look, for instance, at Christ's touching word to Simon the Pharisee, in Luke 7. "When they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both."[12] Now, so far as the mere matter of the debt was concerned, the result would have been the same whatever style had been adopted. But what heart does not receive the moral power of the word, "frankly?" Who would part with it? Who could bear to see the substance stripped of its style? The creditor might forgive with a murmur about the amount. That murmur would, in the judgment of a sensitive heart, rob the act of all its charms. On the other hand, the frankness of the style enhances, beyond expression, the value of the substance.

Again, look for a moment at that familiar but ever fruitful section of inspiration, Luke 15. Each of the parables illustrates the power and beauty of style. When the man finds his sheep, what does he do? Does he complain of all the trouble, and commence to drive the sheep home before him? Ah! no; this would never do. What then? "He layeth it on his shoulders."[13] How? Complaining of the weight or the trouble? Nay; but "rejoicing."[14] Here we have the lovely style. He showed that he was glad to get His sheep back again. The sheep would have been safe on the shoulder, however it had been placed there; but who would part with the word "rejoicing?" Who could bear to see the substance of the action stripped of its charming style?

So also in the case of the woman and her lost piece of silver. "She lights a candle, sweeps the house, and seeks."[15] How? With dullness, weariness, indifference? By no means; but "diligently,"[16] like one whose whole heart was in her work. It was quite manifest that she really wanted to find the lost piece of silver. Her style proved this.

Lastly, mark the style of the father in receiving the poor returning prodigal. "When he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him."[17] He does not send out a servant to tell the erring one to turn aside into one of the out-offices, or betake himself to the kitchen, or even to confine himself to his own room. No; he himself runs. He, as it were, lays aside his paternal dignity, in order to give expression to his fatherly affection. He is not satisfied with merely receiving the wanderer back. He must prove that his whole heart is in the reception; and this he does, not merely by the substance of the act, but by his style of doing it.

Various other passages might be adduced to illustrate the style of divine forgiveness; but the above will suffice to prove that God graciously recognizes the power which style has to act upon the human heart. I shall, therefore, in closing this paper, make an earnest appeal to my reader, as to what he now thinks of the ground, the extent, and the style of divine forgiveness.

Beloved reader, thou seest that the ground is as stable as the very throne of God itself, that the extent is infinite; and the style all that the heart could possible desire. Say, therefore art thou satisfied as to the great question of the forgiveness of sins? Can you any longer doubt God's willingness to forgive when He has set before you, in such a way, the ground on which, the extent to which, and the style in which He forgives sins? Can you hesitate when He actually

"Opens His own heart to thee

And shows His thoughts how kind they be?"

He stands with open arms to receive thee. He points thee to the cross, where His own hand laid the foundation of forgiveness; and assures thee that all is done, and beseeches thee to rest now, henceforth, and for evermore, in that which He has wrought for you. May the blessed Spirit lead thee to see these things in all their clearness and fullness, so that thou mayest not only believe in the forgiveness of sins, but believe also, that, thy sins are frankly and for ever forgiven.

C. H. M.

ENDNOTES:

[1] Psa. 32:1, KJV

[2] Col. 1:21, KJV; Eph. 2:3, KJV

[3] Acts 13:32, KJV

[4] Rom. 5:21, KJV

[5] Psa. 85:10, KJV

[6] See Romans 3:26.

[7] 1 Jn. 1:9, KJV

[8] Isa. 38:17, KJV

[9] Jer. 31:34, KJV; Heb. 10:17, KJV

[10] Isa. 53:6, KJV

[11] 1 Jn. 1:6, KJV

[12] Lk. 7:42, KJV, italics his. The New American Standard Bible renders it: "he graciously forgave them both" (Lk. 7:42, NASB, italics added).

[13] Lk. 15:5, KJV

[14] Ibid., italics his.

[15] Lk. 15:8, KJV

[16] Ibid.

[17] Lk. 15:20, KJV

The Gospel According to Isaiah 53

2011-08-29T00:58:00.026-05:00

"But not everyone has obeyed the gospel, for Isaiah asks [in Isaiah 53:1], 'Lord, who has believed our message?'"

(Romans 10:16, International Standard Version)

The Pure Gospel

2011-08-21T12:03:00.066-05:00

Written by Ralph Norwood*

Reprinted by permission

THE PURE GOSPEL

Galatians chapter one

I. INTRODUCTION

1. I want to talk about the book that teaches that you "CANNOT PATCH UP LEGALISM"....

2. Background: There were many Galatian churches, but this was written to the church at Galatia....Paul had taken to them a very pure gospel....within a short time, they lost the pure gospel.

3. This book has one of the shortest and most terse introductions in Epistles.

4. These people questioned the authority of Paul....He makes it clear that when he speaks, it is the same as the Lord speaking.

5. Then he registers his amazement at their change....1:6 "I am utterly shocked"....They had departed from the true gospel.

a. Note: whenever there is a problem among believers, then go back to the basics and you most likely will find their problem. The problem of these people was the SIMPLICITY OF THE GOSPEL....which they had deserted.

b. Note v. 7....where it teaches that there is ONLY ONE GOSPEL. There is no such thing as COMING CLOSE to the real.

c. How about v. 8....may he be dammed. [THIS IS NOT VERY ECUMENICAL.] Some would say that this was not very loving....Paul would tell another angel who preached another gospel...to GO TO HELL....

6. Paul mentions that he was NOT TAUGHT THE GOSPEL but received it by revelation. [He was the only person who was not taught the gospel.]

WHAT IS THE GOSPEL? 1 Cor. 15:3-5 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then the twelve."

1. There are 4 verbs.

a. Christ DIED

b. Christ was BURIED

c. Christ was RAISED

d. Christ APPEARED. [It is in the passive voice.]

2. Note the subject of each is the same...."CHRIST"

3. Comments:

a. Christ died: definite event...

b. Christ was buried: definite event [in the aorist tense]

c. Christ was raised: definite event [with a line following it...with lasting results]. Why was the tense of the verb changed on the resurrection?**

4. NOTE THE COUPLETS.

a. Christ died and how do you know he died? HE WAS BURIED.

b. Christ was raised and how do you know He was raised? BECAUSE HE APPEARED....HE WAS SEEN.

5. Only ONE of the 4 verbs has the phrase "FOR OUR SINS" added to it...."FOR OUR SINS" is not connected to the BURIAL, RESURRECTION OR APPEARANCE....It is connected only with HIS DEATH.

a. His death dealt with our sins; The burial, resurrection and appearing did not. He was NOT raised for our sins...HE DIED FOR OUR SINS....

b. He died FOR which means ON BEHALF OF our sins.

___________________

* Editor's note: Ralph Norwood faithfully served the Lord as a pastor-teacher for 50 years before his home-going in 2008. Though Ralph has gone to be with Jesus, his ministry continues to bear fruit to the glory of God. Please check out his website Bible Readings for Believers, as well as the YouTube video in his memory. "Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His godly ones" (Ps. 116:15). Special thanks to Ralph's widow, Joyce Norwood, who has graciously allowed me to reprint this excellent article on the gospel.

**Editor's note: The tense of the verb "was raised" (1 Cor. 15:4) is in the Greek perfect tense (indicating abiding or lasting results) because Jesus was raised from the dead "never to die again" (Rom. 6:9). He is "alive forevermore" (Rev. 1:18; cf. Ps. 16:10-11)!

In Defense of the Gospel, Part 4

2011-08-14T15:43:00.035-05:00

Continued from "In Defense of the Gospel, Part 3".

Question: Do you believe that someone needs to believe in the deity of Christ? If you do, how do you find that information in 1 Cor. 15:3ff?

Answer: Yes, I do believe that a person has to believe in the deity of Jesus in order to be saved. I see the truth of Jesus' deity set forth in the 1 Corinthians 15 passage in at least three ways:

1.) In the title "the Christ" (1 Cor. 15:3) - In 1 Corinthians 15:3 the apostle Paul uses the divine title as a name (cf. Matt. 16:16; Jn. 20:31).[1] It is also significant that this passage assumes or presupposes the identity of Jesus as the Christ.[2]

2.) In the testimony "that He was raised" (1 Cor. 15:4) - In Romans 1:4 Paul emphasizes that Jesus "was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead" (cf. Acts 2:22-36)!

3.) In the time element "on the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4) - It is noteworthy that on numerous occasions Jesus predicted not only His resurrection, but more specifically the very time of His resurrection: on the third day (Matt. 12:38-41, 16:21, 17:23, 20:19; Mk. 9:31, 10:34; Lk. 9:22, 18:33, 24:7, 46; Jn. 2:13-22). When the apostle Peter strenuously objected to this and other gospel truths, Jesus said to him: "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's" (Matt. 16:21-23). Jesus' resurrection on the third day confirms that He is the Christ (the Messiah) promised in the Old Testament Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:4; cf. Mat. 12:38-41; Lk. 18:31-33, 24:44-49; Jn. 2:13-22; Acts 10:40-43).[3] Ambrose affirms: "Of all those whom God raised from the dead to life, there is not one that was raised on the third day but Jesus Christ; some rose before, and some after...but Christ takes the third day, which discovers him to be the Messiah".[4]

The Bible makes it clear that a person must believe the gospel in order to be saved (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:17-18, 15:1-5; Eph. 1:13; 2 Thess. 1:8-9, etc.) - no more and no less. If a person believes the gospel - and this gospel sets forth the deity of the man called Jesus, then when a person believes the gospel they are by extension also believing in the deity of Jesus. To what extent a person has to understand the deity of Jesus I'm not sure other than to say that a person has to believe the gospel (which sets forth the deity of Jesus). A person has to believe in the deity of Jesus to that extent - and that's not very much! George Meisinger, the President of Chafer Theological Seminary, has said that a person might only understand that the gospel sets forth Jesus Christ as more than a man. Meisinger writes: "An unbeliever's understanding of 'Christ' and deity will be embryonic, perhaps not much more than 'Jesus is more than man thus able to save me!'"[5] The point I'm making here is that the person believes the gospel (1 Cor. 15:3-5), and from this core message (or some similar Scripture) has come to conclude that Jesus is more than a man. So the individual believes that Jesus Christ is more than a man Who died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and was seen by others. With this understanding and belief this more-than-a-man Person can only be the God-Man! Whether or not an individual puts it in those words seems irrelevant. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The individual believes in the concept of Jesus' deity, regardless of whether they use the word "deity" (or "God") or not.

And so I would say that when a person believes the gospel, they are believing in the deity of Jesus (for the reasons I mentioned above), and they understand that concept as much as God requires for salvation at that point.

Continue on to "In Defense of the Gospel, Part 5".

ENDNOTES:

[1] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 724.

[2] I. Howard Marshall writes: "In 1 Corinthians 15:3 ff. Paul quotes an early piece of tradition concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The interesting point is that the statements in this passage are made about Christ, not about Jesus. The statement thus assumes that Jesus is the Christ, and therefore predicates of him various experiences which are regarded as being in accordance with the Scriptures. In other words, this piece of tradition presupposes that at an earlier stage the identification of Jesus with the Christ had been made, so that in 1 Corinthians 15:3 ff. it was possible to assume the equation of Jesus with the Christ." (I. Howard Marshall, "The Resurrection in the Acts of the Apostles," W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin, Editors, Apostolic History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce [Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1970], 98-99.) The same equation between Jesus and Christ is also made in 1 Peter 1:11. (Ibid., 99, notes 34 and 37.)

[3] For further discussion see "The Deceiver Savior of the Groundless Gospel" and "Things of First Importance".

[4] Isaac Ambrose, Looking Unto Jesus, 423. Ambrose goes on to say of Jesus that "his rising on the third day was the accomplishment of prophecies, and a certain evidence that he was the Messiah indeed." (Ibid, 425.)

[5] Meisinger, "The Gospel Paul Preached: A Church Age Model of Evangelistic Content," Chafer Theological Seminary Journal: 10; cf. Matt. 12:6, 41, 42. Josh McDowell makes the same point in his classic book More Than A Carpenter: Jesus is More Than A Carpenter - He is God! Charlie Bing affirms: "The concept of 'Christ' [in 1 Cor. 15:3] may not have been entirely understood by the Corinthian readers, but the meaning of 'anointed' and His work of dying for sins certainly points to a special divine messenger." (Bing, "How To Share the Gospel Clearly" n.p.).

A Refutation of Zane Hodges' "Works Salvation"

2011-08-07T21:34:00.060-05:00

"Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'" (Matthew 22:13)

Is this the fate which unfaithful Christians can expect in the future Millennial Kingdom and even into eternity? Many in the Free Grace movement - particularly those in the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) - would answer with a resounding "Yes!". But is this what the Scriptures teach about the glorious future of every believer in Christ?

This is the subject taken up by James Ventilato in his classic refutation of the GES's erroneous view of salvation (Miles J. Stanford labels the GES error "a works salvation"). And now for the first time Mr. Ventilato's article is available in the fully searchable PDF format. The article is titled:

"EXAMINING THE TEACHINGS OF 'PROTESTANT-PURGATORY' SALVATION"

A SCRIPTURAL REFUTATION OF THE TEACHINGS OF ZANE HODGES, JOSEPH DILLOW AND THE GRACE EVANGELICAL SOCIETY, WITH RESPECT TO THE FUTURE INHERITANCE, GLORY AND DESTINY OF THE CHURCH - CHRIST'S BELOVED BODY AND BRIDE

I first read this article nearly ten years ago, and I still think it's the best refutation of Hodges' position that I've ever come across. I'd like to see this article get into the hands of as many people as possible because I think Hodges' false teaching on future tense salvation is unfortunately becoming quite common in Free Grace circles these days. The thinking seems to be that Hodges' position is the only alternative to the loss-of-salvation view. While Hodges' position might be an alternative to the loss-of-salvation view, I don't think it's the only alternative or even the best alternative. I don't believe it's biblical nor is it traditional Free Grace - as Mr. Ventilato so aptly points out in his article.

I'm going to place Mr. Ventilato's article in the Unofficial Free Grace Library archives. It can be found there under "Church" and "Salvation". I encourage everyone to read it and distribute it!

_________________________

For more information see the following article(s) from the Middletown Bible Church website:

"The Troubling Teachings of Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillow, and Robert Wilkin (The Grace Evangelical Society) and the Extreme Teachings of J. D. Faust"

Also see the following series of articles by Miles J. Stanford titled "DISPENSATIONAL DISINTEGRATION". This three-part series is a must read!

"DISPENSATIONAL DISINTEGRATION, Part 1"

(A Critique of Joseph Dillow's The Reign of the Servant Kings)

"DISPENSATIONAL DISINTEGRATION, Part 2"

(A Critique of Zane Hodges' Grace In Eclipse)

"DISPENSATIONAL DISINTEGRATION, Part 3"

(THE NEW COVENANT'S Relationship To Israel and the Church)

How I Came to Understand the Importance of a Clear Gospel!

2011-07-31T21:24:00.034-05:00

by Peter Hann*

I never realized how important and vital it is to present the gospel of Jesus Christ as clearly as possible. The souls of mankind are at stake if it is not. In this article I'll give my testimony as to how and why it is important to present the gospel in the clearest way possible.

In the fall of 2010, I left my former church, which I won't mention by name. It was hard for me to leave, because there were and are dear brothers and sisters in the Lord that I still do love and care about and continue to pray for. I'm also not saying these dear brothers and sisters in the Lord had bad motives. I left due to my concern about how their gospel was presented.

For example, when I first started attending in 2000, shortly after that in the summer of 2001 the church leadership asked me if I knew the "Sinner's Prayer". I sighed and said, "I don't know; I think I do." Then the pastor asked me if I knew it. He took me aside and prayed the prayer. I don't believe I was saved, because I was just saying words. I did not have a change of heart. I actually did get saved, by accepting Jesus Christ alone as my Savior in the fall of 2001.

Looking back, I scratch my head as to why the leadership asked me if I knew a prayer, because there are lots of believers in Christ who don't know the Sinner's Prayer. My former church had it in writing that if you prayed this prayer you were a part of God's family. I thought to myself, "that can't be right because of what John 1:12 says: 'To all who received Him (Jesus) He gave the right to become children of God.'" I'm concerned that praying the Sinner's Prayer can confuse an unbeliever by clouding the clarity of the gospel.

I am deeply concerned with one other statement my former church had given in written form. It stated that to come to saving faith in Christ, you had to "be willing to turn from your sins." Until 2006, I was fine with that statement. Then in the fall of 2005, I had another believer in Christ move in as a second roommate. When he saw the "Sinner's Prayer" and their statement "be willing to turn from your sins," he told me that he believed it was a "false gospel." I thought to myself: "Where in the world is this guy coming from?" "Does this guy hate the word 'repent'?" I also thought: "Is this guy just trying to make salvation in Christ a 'sloppy easy' believe without genuine repentance?"

I then realized that my roommate was not trying to take the word "repent" out of the salvation experience, but instead he was trying to give out the true saving repentance message. His fear was that when someone reads: "turn from your sins," that person would think, "Oh, do I have to clean up my life first and stop my lying, stealing, etc. in order to come to Christ?" Some have labeled my former church's teaching "Lordship Salvation". My roommate told me how God is willing to take lost sinners and save them from Hell's flames just the way they are. Romans 5:8 says that "God demonstrates His own love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

Now it is true that in order for human beings to be saved from God's judgment in Hell, they must repent.[1] But in salvation repentance, the unsaved need to change their whole minds about their own goodness or rituals to save them from Hell. Just like Hebrews 6:1 says: "We repented from our dead works." We came to Christ on the basis of grace alone by placing 100% trust in His redemptive work alone - nothing more, nothing less. It would be like someone offering someone else $20 as a free gift. But if the giver wanted the other person to run an errand to keep that $20 then it would not be a free gift. Our salvation in Christ is an awesome free gift! The Lord, through my roommate, helped me to develop an understanding of why it is important to present the gospel so it doesn't appear like Lordship Salvation.

I had another fellow believer in Christ who was also concerned about the clarity of the gospel. He pointed out a verse to me in Genesis 6:6 where it says: "It grieved the Lord that He made man." Some translations say: "It repented the Lord that He made man."[2] In that passage of Scripture we know it means that God had a change of mind.[3] There's no way God could repent of any sin because He is perfect and holy.

So I tried approaching the church leadership, concerned that they were telling unbelievers that they had to turn from their sins to get saved. That presentation of the gospel can be confusing. My church leadership thought that I too (like my roommate) was trying to take the word "repent" out of the salvation experience. I made it clear to them that I wasn't trying to take the word "repent" out - I was just giving it a clearer definition. Because before people come to know Jesus Christ as their Savior, the only sin (singular) they can repent of is the sin of unbelief.[4] Once an unbeliever trusts Christ alone, that person is then sealed with the Holy Spirit, like Ephesians 1:13 says. Now the believer can work on purging out sins (plural) like lying, stealing, and immorality - now that the individual is saved, and is growing, and maturing in their Christian walk.[5] This happens as the Christian is filled and led by the Holy Spirit.

When unbelievers get saved they may (or may not) feel sorrow or remorse or contrition over their sins.[6] There is nothing wrong with that. I just fear that unbelievers could think that being remorseful or sorry alone will save them from God's judgment. Even though Judas Iscariot felt sorrow after betraying Christ,[7] our Lord still labeled him "the son of perdition".[8] It's like someone being in a court of law with a $30,000 fine against him. No matter how sorry he feels about the crime, he can't be set free until the fine is paid. Someone has to pay the fine for that crime. This is exactly what Jesus Christ did for the sins of mankind - by suffering, dying, and being raised from the grave (as proof that the payment was accepted).[9]

Paul said that he rejoiced not that the Corinthian Christians were sorry, but that their sorrow led to repentance.[10] Because of what Jesus did for us, it should be the motivation for believers in Christ to live godly and holy lives - out of gratitude for what the Lord has done for us. 2 Corinthians 5:14 says: "For the love of Christ compels us."

Before I left my former church, I approached another one of the elders concerning the gospel and repentance. He thought my roommate was a Hyper-Calvinist with no genuine repentance. I told the elder that wasn't true. I told this elder that my friend's concern was a clear gospel. When I brought my concern to the elder about an unbeliever reading in the church bulletin, "be willing to turn from your (plural) sins," he made some kind of remark that it's not you turning from your plural sins, it's God turning you from your plural sins. I think he may have said "a will of the mind," in regards to turning from one's plural sins. I feared this again could make the unsaved think they have to clean up their lives first in order to come to Christ. I think this elder may also have said that he didn't think it was a big deal to present the gospel clearly - that God is sovereign and will bring to pass the gospel. I do agree that God is sovereign, but we must present the truth of the gospel as clearly as we can. Like I said before, the souls of men are at stake. I told the elder that it's similar to how we would want MapQuest to present driving directions as clearly as can be. This elder said that he was more concerned about presenting the gospel completely than clearly. But as believers we must present the gospel clearly and completely!

Another man in the church leadership, when he heard my roommate's concerns, may have been confused as to where my friend was coming from. He even labeled my roommate as "Grace Only." As I think about it now, I think to myself: "Oh my goodness." It's either a person is under law or under grace, like it says in Galatians.[11] I've heard it said that there are only two world religions: "Grace" and "Works". I don't know what exactly this elder meant, but he stated to me that living godly and holy wasn't an option. I agree that Godly living is required in order for believers to have fellowship, but it is not required to get saved or to stay saved. Godly living is required in order for Christians to maintain fellowship with God as it says in 1 John.[12] It's like a father-son relationship. If the son was to be disobedient, he would be subject to his father's discipline. But if he confessed it, he would be brought back into fellowship with his father.

I had another concern at that church. I hope I'm not quoting him wrong, but the one pastor made a comment that God saved him not because someday he would receive Christ, but because God had chosen him. That could be predestination which many who are devout Calvinists believe. It is true that God does grant repentance,[13] but a human being must make a volitional choice to either receive or reject the Son like it says in John 3:36. Also, 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

I was water baptized in 2009. Before I was baptized I had to give my personal testimony on how I came to saving faith in Jesus Christ. In my testimony I didn't say anything about "being willing to turn from my sins" (like the church bulletin said). I simply said that the way I got saved was by seeing that I was a lost Hell-bound and judgment-deserving sinner, and the only way of escaping that judgment was to place 100% trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ alone (His death on the cross, burial, and resurrection) - nothing more, nothing less. When I was bringing up my doctrinal concerns to the church leadership, I should have asked them whether it was right for them to have baptized me, due to the fact that I never said anything in my testimony about "being willing to turn from my sins".

One last thing I tried submitting to my church leaders before I left was a clearer definition of saving repentance, which I'll list point by point below.

Saving Repentance is:

A change of mind.[14] To change your mind about your own goodness to inherit a right standing with God. To also change your mind about Who Jesus is and the fact that He died on the cross for your sins. You must realize you are a lost Hell-bound and judgment-deserving sinner. The only avenue of escaping that judgment is to place 100% of your trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ alone at Calvary (His death on the cross, burial, resurrection, and appearances).[15]

Belief in Christ.[16] It's like if you're falling from the sky with a strapped on parachute. You must place 100% trust in the parachute to save you from hitting the ground at too fast of a speed, to your death. It's the same principle with trusting Jesus Christ. You must place 100% trust in His redemptive work to save you from the penalty for your sins on Judgement Day.[17] You can't even place 99% of your trust in Jesus Christ and 1% of your trust in your efforts.[18] You must place 100% of your trust in Jesus Christ.[19]

Not to be confused with the fruits of repentance.[20] The moment you trust Christ alone, you are now a saved child of God.[21] Christians must be willing to turn from sins such as lying, stealing, etc. - not to get saved or to stay saved - but in order to maintain fellowship with God.[22] Imagine a father-son relationship. If the son is disobedient, it does not mean that the son is not part of the family or that he will be kicked out of the family due to his disobedience. The son will always be a son. The disobedient son is just subject to his father's discipline. If the son confesses his sinfulness to his father, the son is brought back into right fellowship. If the son does not, he is still subject to his father's discipline. The same principle works with God's discipline of his children.[23]

Consistent with grace.[24] Salvation is a free gift.[25] It's like being offered $20 as a free gift - only so much better! If the one who offered us the $20 told us that in order to keep the money we must wash his car, then it would not be a free gift.

This is what the grace of God is. It is God's simple plan of salvation. It is so simple a child can understand it. Mankind is the one who unfortunately complicates it more than is required for saving faith. Satan is the one who ultimately wants to confuse the clear gospel message. He does not want anyone to receive Jesus Christ but would rather that they spend a horrible eternity in Hell. So as believers, we need to get the true, simple, and clear gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost before time runs out!

__________________________

*Editing and endnotes provided by Jonathan Perreault.

ENDNOTES:

[1] Matt. 12:38-41; Acts 11:14-18, 17:30-34, 20:21; Rom. 2:4-5; 2 Pet. 3:9

[2] Gen. 6:6, KJV

[3] See C. I. Scofield's "Repentance (O.T.) Summary" in The Scofield Reference Bible, 972.

[4] John 16:8-9. Charles Ryrie affirms that in terms of salvation, "repentance means changing your mind about the particular sin of rejecting Christ." (Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine, 139.)

[5] The Bible makes a distinction between repentance and the fruits of repentance (Matt. 3:1-8; Acts 26:20).

[6] Ryrie writes: "The only kind of repentance that saves is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. People can weep; people can resolve to turn from their past sins; but those things in themselves cannot save. The only kind of repentance that saves anyone, anywhere, anytime is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. The sense of sin and sorrow because of sin may stir up a person's mind or conscience so that he or she realizes the need for a Savior, but if there is no change of mind about Jesus Christ there will be no salvation." (Ryrie, So Great Salvation [Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989], 94-95.)

[7] Matt. 27:1-5

[8] Jn. 17:12

[9] Acts 17:31; Rom. 1:4, Rom. 4:25, NASB

[10] 2 Cor. 7:9, NKJV

[11] Gal. 2:21, 5:4; cf. Rom. 6:14-15

[12] 1 Jn. 1:1-9

[13] Acts 11:18

[14] The Greek word for "repentance" (metanoia) literally means: "a change of mind". (Walter Bauer, F. W. Gingrich, and Frederick Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979], 512.)

[15] Isa. 53:1-12; Acts 13:26-32; 1 Cor. 15:1-5

[16] Saving repentance is included in and part of saving faith (compare Jonah 3:5 with Matt. 12:41; compare Matt. 4:17 with Mk. 1:14-15; compare Matt. 3:1-2 with Jn. 1:6-7 and Acts 19:4; also see: Acts 11:17-18, 17:30-34, 20:21, etc.). Scofield affirms: "Saving faith...includes and implies that change of mind which is called repentance." (Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible, 1174; cf. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic theology, 8 Vols., 3:372-378, 7:265; Charles Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine, 139; Robert Lightner, Sin, The Savior, and Salvation, 167; Bob Nyberg, "Repentance versus Faith;" Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 289; etc.)

[17] That is, the Great White Throne Judgment for the unsaved (Rev. 20:11-15), not the Bema Seat Judgment for the saved (1 Cor. 3:10-15; 2 Cor. 5:10).

[18] Isa. 64:6; Rom. 4:4-5; Gal. 3:10; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 3:7-9; Titus 3:5

[19] Rom. 3:27-28

[20] Matt. 3:1-8; Acts 26:20

[21] Jn. 1:12, 5:24

[22] Amos 3:3, NKJV; 1 Jn. 1:1-9

[23] Heb. 12:4-13; Rev. 3:19-20

[24] Acts 11:17-18; Acts 20:21, 24

[25] Rom. 3:24, 5:16, 6:23

TRUTH AT A GLANCE

2011-07-30T20:57:00.010-05:00

"The Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures, he was buried, he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures - and is still alive! - and he was seen by Cephas, and then by the twelve disciples."

(1 Corinthians 15:3b-5, International Standard Version)

The Two Aspects of Forgiveness

2011-07-18T22:39:00.035-05:00

Recently I have been defending the doctrine of divine forgiveness over at Antonio da Rosa's Free Grace Theology blog. Antonio has been writing a series of articles titled "God's Forgiveness" in which he argues for a new view of forgiveness that he learned from Zane Hodges. According to this view, forgiveness is never used in the judicial sense but only in the parental sense. In other words, Antonio believes that forgiveness is only for the purpose of fellowship, not justification. However, the Bible clearly teaches both aspects of forgiveness: judicial (Acts 10:43; Rom. 4:7-8; Col. 2:13-14; etc.) and parental (Ps. 32:5; James 5:15; 1 Jn. 1:9; etc.). Although I do not agree with Antonio's parental-only view of forgiveness, I have found the topic interesting and the dialogue helpful in understanding his position. But then in the middle of our dialogue something really strange happened and one of my comments suddenly disappeared without a trace! I am going to post the missing comment here to enable further discussion should Antonio choose for that to continue.

In the comment below I am responding to Antonio and arguing for the judicial aspect of forgiveness. In the first part of my comment I discuss Zane Hodges' exegesis of Acts 13:38-39. Then in the second part of my comment I note that justification has two sides: the positive side and the negative side. I explain that God's judicial forgiveness is the negative side of justification. Here's the dialogue:

Antonio said...

"Jonathan,

I have responded to your point and answered your questions.

you asked:
-----------
Could you please explain to me Antonio how forgiveness of sins is not equated with justification in this passage?
----------
I did this in the 3 part comment, and my last comment.

You said:
----------
It seems to me from the text that forgiveness of sins is an integral part of justification. Furthermore, the language here is judicial. This seems to be a clear example in which forgiveness is used in the judicial and legal sense.
----------
I responded to these points in my 3 part comment and the last comment.

As for your request for more information about Acts 13, check my answers out via any grammar. I don't think that I am unclear on it. If you have taken any koine Greek, you have the resources to verify my statements. Zane Hodges was a Greek Professor, and he didn't make the same connection that you do in Acts 13.

If there are points or questions that I have failed to answer or comment on, please bring those things to my attention. I believe that I have been quite responsive to your comments.

Please show how the context demands your interpretation. Please use the principles of biblical interpretation and the laws of reason and logic to present an argument from this text supporting your position.

I understand the wishy washy nature of the traditional understanding -- some say it is the same as justification, others say it is like justififation [sic]. You seem to have taken both positions in this comment thread.

Again, if I haven't been compliant to answer and respond to your questions and points, please be so kind as to let me know as to which ones you refer.

Thanks for hanging in there.

Antonio

July 18, 2011 3:24 PM"

(Below is the missing comment.)

Jonathan Perreault said...

"Hi Antonio,

I respect Hodges work on the Greek text, but in regards to Acts 13 I believe his exegesis is somewhat shallow. What do I mean? I am referring specifically to his article 'Justification: A New Covenant Blessing,' in which he uses the American Heritage Dictionary - an English dictionary (as opposed to a Greek lexicon) - in distinguishing between forgiveness and justification. He also bases his distinction/non-equation between the two terms on the word 'and' (Acts 13:39, NKJV), but even he admits that this word is only found in certain Greek manuscripts (i.e. only in the Majority Text). Hodges then says that even without the 'and' the passage in Acts 13:38-39 is broken down into two sentences, which apparently supports his distinction? (But if that is true, wouldn't the use of the word 'and' then disprove his distinction? The two arguments appear somewhat self-refuting.) It all seems so - to use your words: 'wishy washy'. Maybe Hodges has offered other exegetical insights on the passage that I am not aware of? I was asking you about these (if there was any?), and also about what OTHER Greek scholars have to say about the exegesis of the passage in Acts 13?

Now concerning the passage in Romans 4, when I asked you how forgiveness and justification are not to be equated, I was using your words, not offering a complete or blanket endorsement of that position. I felt that I was unclear on that, and that is why I offered my clarification saying that I don't think the two terms are EXACTLY equivalent, although I do believe that forgiveness is involved or inherent in justification (being the negative aspect of it). Justification involves forgiveness but goes beyond it to the actual imputation of Christ's righteousness (this is the positive aspect and full meaning of justification). Justification is not merely being without sin (i.e. forgiven), but it is being declared, in fact, righteous. We see both the negative and the positive aspects of justification in the passage in Romans 4. Using the example of Abraham the apostle Paul gives the POSITIVE aspect of justification, namely being declared righteous (Rom. 4:3,5). Then in giving the example of David "side by side with Abraham" (so says Godet) Paul highlights THE SAME POINT - justification by faith alone (see Rom. 4:6a where 'the conjunction of comparison kathaper is more forcible than kathos: it indicates an intrinsic and striking agreement: exactly as' - Godet) from the NEGATIVE aspect of justification, namely the forgiveness of sins, the covering of sins, and the non-imputation of sin (Rom. 4:7,8). Commenting on Romans 4:7-8 and the example of David, Godet summarizes: 'Here, then, is the negative side of justification, the evil which it removes; while in regard to Abraham it was only the positive side which was under treatment, the blessing it confers. Thus it is that the two passages complete one another.' (Godet, Romans, 172.) Anyway, I know you have a limit on the length of the comments so I will cut off my comment there, but these are some of the exegetical insights that I have come across in my studies.

Thanks!

July 18, 2011 6:27 PM"

JULY 25, 2011 UPDATE: Antonio just sent me a kind e-mail to follow up on our online discussion and to clarify any misunderstandings. I will be continuing my dialogue on divine forgiveness over at his blog as time allows.

ENDNOTES:

[1] The entire discussion with the exception of the missing comment can be read in the comment thread of Antonio's post: "God's Forgiveness Part 2: A Working Thesis".

[2] For more information on the two aspects of forgiveness see the chart: "Two Aspects of Forgiveness" by George Zeller. Also see the article: "Forgiveness of sins: What is it?" by C. H. Mackintosh.

[3] Godet's Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans can be found in The Unofficial Free Grace Library.

In Defense of the Gospel, Part 3

2011-07-09T18:58:00.062-05:00

Continued from "In Defense of the Gospel, Part 2".

Question: "What if a preacher says that the gospel has only 3 points instead of 4 points? Is that wrong?

Answer: I would say that it's perfectly acceptable to outline the gospel in 3 points as long as the preacher doesn't remove any of the content from the gospel (leaving some of the content to be implied is okay as I will go on to explain - just as long as no part of the good news is denied from being included in the gospel). The simplest way I've found to explain this is to say that the content of the gospel can be rearranged but not redefined.[1] In other words, the various points of the gospel can be highlighted in one way or another but the gospel itself cannot be changed.[2] Quoting 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Michael Ramsey affirms: "The Gospel was one. The same framework of events underlies the primitive preaching in Jerusalem, the preaching of Paul, the final presentation of the Gospel in the four written Gospels. There were of course differences of emphasis....But there was one Gospel. In it, amid whatever varieties, the Passion and the Resurrection had the pre-eminent place."[3]

Notice the following biblical examples showing how the gospel can be variously outlined and arranged using 1, 2, 3, or 4 points:

The Gospel in 1 Particular

Christ's substitutionary death:

"Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures"[4]

The Gospel in 2 Pillars

Christ's substitutionary death and resurrection:

"Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" and
"He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"[5]

The Gospel in 3 Points

Christ's substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection:

"Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried,
and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"[6]

The Gospel in 4 Parts

Christ's substitutionary death, burial, resurrection, and appearances:

"Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried,
and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve."[7]

The problem comes in when people start contradicting the Word of God for the sake of their tradition by saying that Christ's burial and resurrection appearances are not part of the gospel.[8] Beware of this new gospel that is not like the others!

The Gospel in 1/2 Portions

Christ's substitutionary death, ~~burial~~, resurrection, ~~and appearances~~:

"Christ died for our sins ~~according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried~~,
and that He was raised ~~on the third day according to the Scriptures~~,
~~and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve~~."[9]

Let me summarize by giving three axioms that I have found helpful in regards to the question at hand:

1) The truths of the gospel can be rearranged but not redefined

2) The truths of the gospel can be emphasized but not excluded[10]

3) The truths of the gospel can be implied but not denied[11]

These three statements highlight the difference between affirming the Word of God and contradicting it. There are grave dangers in contradicting Biblical truth (see: Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:5-6; Jer. 26:2; Matt. 5:17, 15:9; Lk. 11:52, NIV; Rev. 22:18-19). "So dangerous a thing it is to meddle ever so slightly with the words of - GOD."[12] Christians must always be careful to "hold fast" to the Word of God and to the truth of the gospel (see: 1 Cor. 15:1-2; cf. 2 Thess. 2:14-15).

Continue on to "In Defense of the Gospel, Part 4".

ENDNOTES:

[1] Sadly, some in the Free Grace movement have taken it upon themselves to redefine the gospel. See the articles "Getting the Gospel Right" and "The Strange Beliefs of Stegall's System".

[2] When I say "the gospel itself cannot be changed," I am warning against a mistranslation of the exegetical definition of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5 - making the text say something that it really doesn't say. For more information on the exegesis behind the gospel see the article "Getting the Gospel Right".

[3] A. Michael Ramsey, The Resurrection of Christ [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1947], 13, ellipsis and italics added; cf. Ibid., 21, 44, 73-74.

[4] 1 Cor. 15:3; also see, for example: 1 Cor. 1:17, 18, 23; 2:2. NOTE: Christ's burial, resurrection, and appearances are implied in the gospel, not denied in the gospel.

[5] 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; also see, for example: 1 Thess. 4:14; 2 Cor. 5:15. NOTE: Christ's burial and appearances are implied in the gospel, not denied in the gospel. ALSO NOTE: The Gospel in 2 Pillars is sometimes outlined and explained like this: 1.) Christ's substitutionary death + burial, 2.) Christ's resurrection + appearances.

[6] 1 Cor. 15:3-4; also see, for example: Matt. 12:38-41; Col. 2:12. NOTE: Christ's appearances are implied in the gospel, not denied in the gospel. ALSO NOTE: The Gospel in 3 Points is sometimes outlined and explained like this: 1.) Christ's substitutionary death, 2.) Christ's burial, 3.) Christ's resurrection + appearances.

[7] 1 Cor. 15:3-5; also see, for example: Psa. 22:1-22; Isa. 53:1-12; Acts 2:22-36, 10:38-43, 13:29-31.

[8] See the article "Beware of the Wolves Within Free Grace".

[9] No Bible verses teach this subtle perversion of the true gospel! However, several passages tell believers to watch out for it: 2 Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6-10. NOTE: Christ's burial, resurrection on the third day, appearances to Cephas and the twelve, and the twice repeated phrase "according to the Scriptures" are all denied in the new no-burial gospel!

[10] That is, excluded from the content of the gospel.

[11] That is, denied in the content of the gospel.

[12] Ivan Panin, Editor, The New Testament From The Greek Text (Toronto: The Book Society of Canada, 1979), xiii, italics and caps his.

Fishers of Men, Part 4

2011-07-06T11:17:00.012-05:00

Continued from "Fishers of Men, Part 3".

"NONE IN HELL!"

by William Norton

"Tracts everywhere!" said a youth with a sneer, as a young Christian lad handed him a leaflet one Lord's Day afternoon.

"No," said the lad quietly, "there will be none in hell," and passed on.

God fastened that single sentence as a nail in a sure place and he could not get rid of it - "None in hell!" seemed to echo in his ears every time he saw a tract, and ultimately he was converted.

Reader, there will be "None in hell!" Neither gospel invitation nor gospel entreaties.

How earnestly the lost multitudes, in the hopeless region of despair, would welcome the first invitation of mercy; but their day is past, their time of grace is over. Of these there is "None in hell!" How are you treating them on earth?

These golden opportunities, solemn warnings - these loving invitations of God, as (John 3:16): "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." Accept them, speedily; for, remember, there will be "None in hell." Prov. 1:24-28.

__________________________________

William Norton, Editor, "The Gospel in Print," Moody Bible Institute Monthly 21 (February 1921): 295.

I Never Knew You

2011-07-03T18:29:00.013-05:00

By Peter Hann

Many people have different views on the passage in Matthew 7:21-23 where Jesus says: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven". In a minute I'll give my personal view.

Some people think Jesus' statement is addressed to believers who are living sloppy carnal Christian lives and they're going to lose their salvation if they don't correct - but Christians cannot lose their salvation! It's not dependent on how we live; it's all about what Jesus did. It's also all about grace otherwise it would be our works saving us and no longer grace (Rom. 11:6). Christians living carnal lives will face chastisement by the Lord but not condemnation (1 Cor. 11:32).

Personally what I think Jesus is talking about in the Matthew 7:21-23 passage is people who think they are going to heaven because they have church membership, or they give money to the church, or Grandpa is a Christian, so they think they're saved - or they've been baptized, or given to the poor, and the list goes on and on. These are people that have outward goodness or appear religious but don't have that faith in Jesus in a personal way. To be saved we must stop trusting in things like baptism and church membership and believe in our hearts that we are actually judgment deserving sinners. We must believe in our hearts that Christ died for our sins (Rom. 5:8), with His burial and resurrection validating who He is and what He did for mankind's sins. When we receive Jesus we truly know Him and He knows us, just like Jesus said: "My sheep hear My voice and I know them" (Jn. 10:27). It's like knowing Him on a personal level. It's knowing Jesus rather than just knowing about Him.

A few years ago I sent a couple of photographs to Fox 6 Milwaukee's chief meteorologist Vince Condella, because on his weather forecast he shows feature photos that viewers send in to him and then he will display the photos during the broadcast. I gave him two pictures of Wisconsin scenery, like a shot of Lake Michigan and a view of a pond in central Wisconsin. As he was showing my photos it said on the T.V. screen: "Peter from Greenfield". I recorded the broadcast because I wanted to show it to a friend of mine but not tell her what it was. She was a little reluctant at first of seeing it but as soon as Vince Condella said "Peter from Greenfield" my friend started smiling. It was because she knew me and knew who I was. If it had said "Frank from Delavan" my friend wouldn't have been smiling because she doesn't know who Frank is but she knows who I am and that's why she was smiling. It's the same when we receive Jesus and we come to know Him on a personal level and now He knows us as well.

So if you don't know Jesus receive Him today. Your eternity depends on it!

For more information see the following articles:

"Not Everyone Who Says 'Lord, Lord' Will Enter the Kingdom" by Bob Wilkin

"Lordship and False Followers - Matt. 7:21-23" by Charlie Bing

Glad Tidings - by D. L. Moody

2011-06-28T23:05:00.008-05:00

"There was a man converted in Europe several years ago, and he liked the Gospel so well, he thought he would like to go and publish it. Well, he started out to publish it, and great crowds came to hear him out of curiosity, just as a great many come here out of curiosity, to hear the singing or something of that kind. Well, they came to hear him. The man wasn't much of a speaker, so the next night there wasn't many there, and the third night the man didn't get a hearer. But he was anxious to publish the Gospel, and so he got some great placards and posted them all over the town, that if there was any man in that town that was in debt, to come to his office between certain hours on a certain day with the proof of their indebtedness, and he would pay the debt. Well, of course it went all over the town, but the people didn't believe him. One man said to his neighbor, 'John, do you believe this man will pay our debts?' 'Oh, of course not; that is a great sell; that is a hoax.' The day came, and instead of there being a great rush, there didn't anybody come.

Now, it is a great wonder that there isn't a great rush of men into the Kingdom of God to have their debts paid when a man can be saved for nothing. About 10 o'clock there was a man walking in front of the office; he looked this way and that to see if there was anybody looking, and by and by he was satisfied there wasn't anybody looking, and he slipped in, and he said, 'I saw a notice around town if any one would call here at a certain hour you would pay their debt. Is there any truth in it?' 'Yes,' says the man, 'it is quite true. Did you bring around the necessary papers?' 'Yes.' And after the man had paid the debt he said, 'Sit down, I want to talk to you,' and he kept him there until 12 o'clock. And before 12 o'clock had passed there were two more came in and had their debts paid. At 12 o'clock he let them all out, when they found some other men standing around the door, and they said, 'Well, you found he was willing to pay your debts didn't you?' Yes, they said, it was quite true that he had paid their debts. 'O, if this is so, we are going to get our debts paid.' And they went in, but it was too late. The man said if they had called within a certain hour he would have paid their debts.

To every one of you that is a bankrupt sinner - and you never saw a sinner in the world but that he was a bankrupt sinner - Christ comes and He says, 'I will pay the debt.' And that is just what He wants to do to-night. Bear in mind that the Son of God came into the world to save sinners, and He has got the power to forgive sin. And He has not only got the power, but He is willing to save, and He is anxious to save; and so, my friends, if you will accept Christ's offer you can get out of this hall to-night cleansed of all sin.

Now the question comes, 'Who will accept of Him?' But I can imagine there is a man down in the audience who will say, 'Well, I don't believe in these sudden conversions. I don't believe a man can come in here and be saved at once.' What is it God has got? Is it a gift? Now we read in the sixth chapter of Romans, it is a gift: 'The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.' Now, if a man is saved, there must be one minute when he has not got the gift, and there must be another minute when he has it. And that is what it is represented in the Bible. It is a gift."*

________________________________________

*This is an excerpt from a sermon preached by the evangelist D. L. Moody to audiences in New York. (See: H. H. Birkins, Glad Tidings [New York: E. B. Treat, 1876], 80-82.) The words are just as true today as they were over one-hundred years ago!

Merrill C. Tenney on "the Essence of the Gospel"

2011-05-30T18:40:00.012-05:00

In 1963 Dr. Merrill C. Tenney published an excellent book titled The Reality of the Resurrection in which he discusses "the essence of the gospel". Although the book is now out of print, it is still available to be read online through Open Library (it's free to sign up and borrow it - just be sure to return it). Why am I excited about this book? Because in contrast to some theologians today, Tenney gets the gospel right! Notice what he says in chapter 4 titled "A DEVELOPING THEOLOGY":

"The cardinal tenets of Christian doctrine which Paul himself illustrated or stressed belonged to the comprehensive body of truth which the church proclaimed. His letters include occasional references to the substance of the message which he preached in pioneer territory. Paul epitomized the substance of his message in his first letter to the Corinthian church. 'For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; and that he appeared...' (I Cor. 15:3-5a). He concluded this capsule statement with the words 'So we preach, and so ye believed' (15:11). He claimed that his gospel was accepted by the entire church (Gal. 2:6-10) and that there was no distinction between him and the other preachers, except that his ministry was directed chiefly to the Gentiles, whereas theirs was for the Jews."[1]

Similarly, in chapter 7 titled "THE THEOLOGY OF THE RESURRECTION," Tenney writes:

"Paul, writing to the Galatian churches, stated that Christ gave Himself for our sins that He might free us from this present evil age (Gal. 1:4). He summarized the essence of the gospel for the Corinthian Christians by saying, 'Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;...he was buried;...he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; and...he appeared...' (I Cor. 15:3-5). The apostle emphasized the theological significance of Christ's death, stating that He 'who knew no sin he [God] made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him' (II Cor. 5:21)."[2]

Tenney also devotes several pages in his book to discussing the significance of Christ's resurrection from the dead on the third day (Jn. 2:19; Matt. 12:40, 16:21, 17:23, 20:19; Lk. 24:46; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor. 15:4, etc.).[3] No-burial gospel advocates ban the truth of the third day from the gospel, but in light of the clear Scriptures on the subject, their belief is truly groundless.[4] Tenney affirms that the resurrection of Christ on the third day - like the other elements of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 - is indeed part of "the essence of the gospel".

ENDNOTES:

[1] Merrill C. Tenney, The Reality of the Resurrection (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1963), 68-69, ellipsis his. (Note: This book was also published by Moody Press, Chicago.)

[2] Ibid., 154, ellipsis and brackets his, bold added.

[3] See chapter 2, "PRE-CHRISTIAN CONCEPTS". (Ibid., 44-46.)

[4] For further discussion see "Things of First Importance" and "The Deceiver Savior".

The Gospel in 4G Series

2011-05-28T21:37:00.005-05:00

By Pastor Rick Adams*

No doubt we have all become familiar with the marketing of 4G technology by the telephone companies promoting their state of the art cell phone service. Have you ever thought about what exactly does 3G or 4G mean?

In the cell phone business the "G" stands for generation...but the marketing relevance or the main difference is speed and the ability of a particular cell phone to use and transfer data!

Romans 1:16 tells us that the Gospel is "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." The scriptural and spiritual relevance is obvious! The Gospel that has the power to save is now in our hands! ...Our generation! Acts 1:8; Matt 28:19-20

The Apostle Paul understood this when he said, "For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. 1 Corinthians 9:16-17

Let us understand clearly just what the Gospel message involves! Again Paul defines that for us! "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:" 1 Cor 15:1-5

"The Gospel in 4G!" is made up of four powerful components:

The Death of Jesus Christ - God's Payment for Sin!
The Burial of Jesus Christ - God's Proof of Sin Satisfied!
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ - God's Promise Fulfilled!
The Witnesses of Jesus Christ - God's Purpose Declared!

I will be preaching on each of these themes as Easter Sunday approaches, April 24th.

Every Christian must see our responsibility of sharing the Gospel with this Generation! Mark 16:15

We are living in a day that communication has never been more powerful, easier or quicker! Today, many boast of having the fastest or most powerful technology to communicate around the world!

However, there is no message that has a more powerful potential than the Gospel of Jesus Christ! What are we doing with it? Will you help us get the message out to the Lost! They are waiting on us to share it with them!

__________________

* Dr. Rick Adams is a graduate of Trinity Baptist College in Jacksonville, Florida. He has served as pastor of Greater Portland Baptist Church since it's beginning in 1982. Pastor Adams has a passion for winning lost souls to Christ and is known as an old-fashioned gospel preacher.

"The Gospel in 4G Series" is used by permission. Special thanks to Pastor Rick Adams and Pastor Greg Adams for graciously allowing me to reprint this article.

A. T. Pierson & The Old-Fashioned Gospel

2011-05-03T11:07:00.104-05:00

"Remember your leaders, who spoke God's message to you; reflect on the outcome of their lives and imitate their faith." (Hebrews 13:7, NET)

A Man from the Past

Let me begin by telling you about a man who probably needs no introduction.[1] He was an American Presbyterian pastor,[2] early fundamentalist leader, and writer of over fifty books including Many Infallible Proofs, The Heart of the Gospel, and Acts of the Holy Spirit. He preached over 13,000 sermons and gave Bible lectures as part of a transatlantic preaching ministry that made him famous in England and Scotland. He was a friend of D. L. Moody and spoke with him at the Northfield Conferences. He lectured at the Moody Bible Institute. He was a speaker at the Keswick Convention. He succeeded C. H. Spurgeon in the pulpit of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. He was a friend of George Muller whose biography George Muller of Bristol he wrote. He was a consulting editor for the original Scofield Reference Bible of 1909, and friend of C. I. Scofield. He was a pioneer advocate of faith missions and the leading evangelical advocate of foreign missions in the late 19th century. He was a man whose most notable influence was due to his commitment to orthodoxy. When liberalism began sweeping through the mainline denominations, this individual joined other concerned Christian leaders in publishing "The Fundamentals," a series of essays designed to answer the critics of Christianity. Because of his apologetic abilities, he was invited to write five of the major articles. Since then, this man has often been called the "Father of Fundamentalism".[3] Who is this man? You probably guessed it: his name is Arthur T. Pierson.

A Message for the Present

A. T. Pierson died June 3, 1911 - almost exactly 100 years ago. But "though he is dead, he still speaks" (Heb. 11:4). Notice how this champion of the faith defines the essence of the gospel in his article "The Resurrection of Our Lord."[4] Expounding on 1 Corinthians 15:4, Pierson writes:

"Christianity rests on four facts - the death, burial, rising, and appearing of Christ. This constitutes the essence of the Gospel. Upon a cross and an empty tomb our faith is built."[5]

Sadly, some modern-day Free Grace advocates of the Duluthian faction (1 Cor. 11:19) have itching ears for something new (cf. Jer. 6:16, NKJV; 2 Tim. 4:3, NET).[6] They say that the old gospel is "incorrect" and "wrong" - even "heresy"![7] They promote a partial gospel and a new non-buried and never-seen savior.[8] Tragically, their new no-burial gospel is a distortion of the biblical gospel and thus falls under the curse of God (Gal. 1:6-9, ESV; cf. 2 Cor. 11:4, NKJV). A lost and dying world doesn't need some new pop-theology, a sound-byte gospel, or a stripped-down message. Instead, they need the simple, straight-forward, and saving old-fashioned gospel of the Bible - the message that has been preached by the likes of A. T. Pierson and the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 15:1-5).[9]

ENDNOTES:

[1] Adapted from "Arthur Tappan Pierson," Wikipedia (accessed May 3, 2011).

[2] A Presbyterian who later became a Baptist! See Clinton Macomber, "Arthur Tappan Pierson," Berean Bible Heritage Church (accessed May 3, 2011).

[3] See "Arthur Tappan Pierson," Wikipedia (accessed May 3, 2011).

[4] Arthur T. Pierson, "HELPS AND HINTS, TEXTUAL AND TOPICAL," The Homiletic Review, Vol. 26 (July 1893): 72-73.

[5] Ibid., 72, italics his, bold added.

[6] See "The Strange Beliefs of Stegall's System".

[7] See "Beware of the Wolves Within Free Grace".

[8] Ibid.

[9] For further discussion see "Getting the Gospel Right," 27-28; cf. "Three Views on the Gospel of Grace".

"What is the Gospel?" - by H. A. Ironside

2011-05-01T14:32:00.035-05:00

The incident referred to in the following paper happened exactly as indicated, and the conversation is as nearly as possible given verbatim though of course I have had to depend upon my memory as I did not take notes; but I can assure the reader that this little tract[1] is not fiction in any sense, but an actual statement of fact. H. A. IRONSIDE

__________________

On one occasion there came to my door a young man dressed in the conventional, pseudo-clerical style that readily proclaimed, to one at all acquainted with the so-called Latter-day Saints, that he was a Mormon "elder" - though "younger" might be a more correct term, (1 Pet. 5:5) as scriptural elders were invariably men of years and experience,[2] who could care for the flock of God (1 Pet. 5:1-3), but were not to lord it over the people of God as over possessions.

In the case mentioned, the Mormon introduced himself as a "minister of the gospel, doing missionary work among the mountain towns" of California, and stated that he would be pleased to put before me some of "the principles of the gospel." Intimating that I myself was also seeking to give forth God's good news to poor sinners (1 Tim. 1:15), he was told that if such was indeed his object, I would be glad to converse with him; so bade him be seated.

The Mormon Gospel Stated

"And now, sir," he was asked, "would you kindly favor us" (a number were present) "with a short statement of what the gospel really is?"

"Certainly," he replied. "The gospel consists of four first principles. The first is repentance; the second, faith; the third, baptism for the remission of sins by one duly qualified; while the fourth is the laying on of the hands of a man having authority, for the reception of the Holy Ghost."

"Well, and supposing one has gone through all this, is he then saved?"

"Oh, of course, no one can know that, in this life. If one goes on to the end, he will be exalted in the kingdom." Thereupon he proceeded to open a little Testament, with which, however, he was but slightly familiar, and pointed us to some proof texts showing conclusively that the Lord and the apostles preached repentance and faith, as also that Peter spoke of "baptism for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38; let the reader carefully note the verse and its context), and that in at least two instances (Acts 8:14-17; 19:1-6) apostles laid their hands on people in order to their receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. An effort was also made to find a verse to prove that no one can know he is saved now; but in the face of Eph. 2:4-8; 1 Pet. 1:9; 1 Cor. 1:8; 2 Cor. 2:15; and 2 Tim. 1:9, this was an utter absurdity, though he pointed to Matt. 24:13, "He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved," in defense of his position.

As to this, one need only say that endurance certainly is a proof of reality. One who said he was saved, yet did not endure, would thereby prove the emptiness of his profession.[3]

"I quite agree with you," I said, "as to the fact that Scripture speaks of the four points you mention; but, possibly, you did not understand my query. I asked you for a statement of the gospel. If these so-called 'four principles' be indeed the gospel, then you have a gospel without Christ; in other words, a gospel with the gospel omitted. And if you are correct, then surely the apostle Paul, at least, labored under a most serious delusion, for he gives us a clear statement of his gospel, and actually says nothing of either one or other of the various points upon which you have dwelt. No doubt you will recollect the passage?"

He did not, however. He was not aware of any such direct statement on the subject. In fact, it was soon evident that, with the exception of a few verses on his favorite themes, his Bible was practically a sealed book. He turned, however, at my direction, to the fifteenth chapter of 1st Corinthians, to which, for a little, I would invite the reader's careful attention.

Paul's Statement of the Real Gospel

Commencing at the first verse of this precious and wondrous portion of Scripture, we read: "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (see Isa. 53:5, 6); "and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures: and that He was seen of Cephas," etc.[4]

Here I stopped, as the rest of the passage is devoted to bringing forth the eye-witnesses of Christ in resurrection, and therefore could hardly be considered doctrinal;[5] though the reader will derive much benefit by meditation on the entire portion at his leisure.

"Now," I said, turning to the Mormon, "we have here a statement of the gospel - the gospel which Paul preached; and it is dangerous to preach any other, as we find from Gal. 1:8-9 that the person who does so, though it be an angel from heaven, is under a curse, or devoted to judgment. I understand that you teach that your gospel was revealed to Joseph Smith by an angel. If true, that would prove nothing, if it be found, upon examination, to be other than that proclaimed by the apostle to the Gentiles. His gospel had been received by the Corinthians; in it they stood; by it they were saved, if real believers. It was not, you will notice, a careful obedience to certain ordinances or a walking according to certain rules, such as you mentioned a few minutes ago, that would insure their salvation, however blessed such might be, if properly understood; but it was keeping in memory this gospel.

Two Gospels Contrasted

"I noticed, then, to begin with, that this gospel is concerning a Person, and quite a different person than yours brings before us. It is 'concerning the Son of God,' as Rom. 1:3 tells us. Your gospel did not have a word about Him in all its four points. The subject of Paul's gospel has not a word about any one or any thing save Him.[6] Perhaps we might say it also could be divided into four heads, though more properly three;[7] but even divided into four (to go as far with you as we can), what marked differences do we find! Your four heads are all concerning the poor sinner, and might be put this way:

1. The sinner repents;

2. The sinner has faith;

3. The sinner is baptized;

4. The sinner has hands laid on him.

Now, in contrast to ths, see how the true gospel can be put:

1. Christ died;

2. Christ was buried;

3. Christ has been raised again;

4. Christ is the object for the hearts of His own.

"Surely the two gospels have nothing in common. You teach, I believe, that Christ died for Adam's transgression, not for ours; but maintain that while Adamic sin is met by the Cross, our sins as individuals must be washed away by baptism. Paul's gospel tells us that He died for our sins; and if that be so, and 'the blood of Jesus Christ, God's Son, cleanseth us from all sin,' [1 Jn. 1:7] where does baptism in your sense apply? If all my sins are met by His precious blood, if they were borne 'in His own body on the tree' (1 Pet. 2:24), how many are left to be cleansed by baptism? Assuredly none. But, alas, this is but one instance in which the false gospel of Mormonism is opposed to the precious gospel of the grace of God as revealed in the Bible."

"But I go on to the second point. Christ not only died, but 'was buried' [1 Cor. 15:4]; yet it was written of Him, 'Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell,[8] neither wilt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption' (Acts 2:27; Psa. 16:10). His burial declares the reality of His death, and surely speaks of His being forever through with the place He took on earth. It is the end of all the relationships in which He previously stood, and tells us He is dead to the law - having paid my penalty - and to sin - not His own, but mine - which He bore, and I am 'buried with Him by baptism unto death' [Rom. 6:4]; so that I am not left where Mormonism would leave me, as a poor struggling soul on earth, striving to continue to the end in order to be saved, but I am accounted as one who, with Him, has been buried to it all: thus I am brought to the third point:

Christ was raised from the dead, and I am raised with Him. His place is now mine as to acceptance with God. 'He was delivered for our offenses and raised again for[9] our justification' [Rom. 4:25]; His resurrection being God's open declaration that the believer is cleared from all charge of sin, since his Substitute is released from death.

And now the One who is alive forevermore (Rev. 1:18) is presented as an object for the hearts of His own. 'He was seen' [1 Cor. 15:5, KJV]; and the same apostle exclaims, in another place, 'We see Jesus!' (Heb. 2:9). Poor sinners are first led to see the utter impossibility of improving or rendering themselves more fit for God's presence. The eye of faith is then directed to the One who died, in whom believing, they are 'justified from all things' (Acts 13:38, 39). Now they have also an object for the heart, even Christ in glory (2 Cor. 3:18). How different this from what you have presented! Here,

''Tis Jesus first, 'tis Jesus last,

'Tis Jesus all the way,'

While you are cast entirely on yourself."

Mormon Doctrine of Authority

"But now, another question. You spoke of men with authority to baptize and lay on hands. Where do you get that in Scripture?"

For answer, he turned to Heb. 5:4, and read, "And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."

"What 'honor' is here referred to?" I asked.

"The honor of the priesthood giving authority to baptize and confer the Holy Ghost."

"No; the first verse contradicts this. It is not a question of the 'priesthood' at all. As all believers now are priests, there is no special priestly class in Christianity, as is clearly shown by referring to Rev. 1:6; and 1 Pet. 2:5, 9. The subject in Heb. 5 is that of High Priesthood, and is referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, called of God, as noted in ver. 6. Nor is there a word about baptism or imposition of hands; but it is a question of 'offering gifts and sacrifices for sins' (ver. 1; also Heb. 2:17), and then of succoring His people in this world of trial. To apply such a scripture to human ministry is simply 'handling the word of God deceitfully,' [2 Cor. 4:2, KJV] and deserves the severest censure."

Such was, in substance, what I sought to put before the misguided young man; but alas, so deceitful is the human heart, that man would rather be occupied with his repentance, his faith, or his anything, than with God's Christ; and I found this preacher of "a different gospel, which is not another" (Gal. 1:6, 7, margin), to be of the same class as thousands in professed Christendom. The scriptures brought before him had but little weight compared with "present-day revelation," despite the word of Paul in Col. 1:25 that he was made a minister "to fully preach the word of God" (margin); so he went on his way, trusting to his fleshly religion and ignoring the "gospel of God."

Ere dismissing the subject, I might remind the reader that neither faith nor repentance is ever presented in Scripture as the ground of salvation. The Cross alone is that. Brought to it by the Spirit of God, the sinner will indeed repent; trusting the work there accomplished, the soul is saved.

Nor are repentance and faith as set forth in the Scriptures to be confounded with the vagaries of Mormonism. In that wretched system repentance is confounded with penitence, and faith with credulity.

In its Biblical sense, repentance is self-judgment; the owning that one is lost and guilty, righteously deserving the wrath of a holy God. Faith is trusting in Christ, whose finished work puts away sins forever. It is not simply crediting the statement that God exits, or that the historical Jesus was the Son of God. "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved; for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Rom. 10:9-10).

Of you, reader, we would affectionately ask, Are you making the same mistake as the "elder?" You might ridicule the "poor, benighted Mormon," and be amazed at the semi-heathenism taught by his church, but do you, perhaps, trust in something just as hollow, when judged by the book of God?

Remember: Penances; wrought-up repentance, consisting in peculiar frames, feelings, and renunciations; intellectual acquiescence to the truths of the Bible, miscalled faith; baptism, whether administered by Mormon elder or ordained clergyman; laying on of hands, or any other human rite or divinely prescribed ceremony, will avail nothing for you.

Christ, and Christ alone, is your only salvation. Discarding all else, fly, then, to Him. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31).

NOTE ON MORMON DOCTRINES

In the preceding paper it has been my aim not to follow all the devious errors of Mormonism, and seek to refute them, but rather to endeavor to show how opposed the system is to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which He has revealed in His Word.

It has been suggested, however, that a brief epitome of some of the more important doctrines of the sect on other lines might be helpful in serving as a warning to any who, allured by fair speeches and sophisticated reasonings, are drifting towards its awful vortex.

The following statements can readily be proven to be part of the weird paganism of this dreadful quasi-religious cult, by examination of the more "advanced" of their publications, though some of them are often denied by the traveling "elders," whose business it is not to alarm by making public the "depths of Satan," but to allure by presenting a creed as near like that of orthodox Christianity as possible. Nothing could be more misleading than the statement of the "doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" which is now being circulated by thousands all over the land as their "Articles of Faith." This was compiled by the assumed prophet Joseph Smith in the infancy of the movement, long before "present-day revelation" had introduced many of the vagaries with which it abounds to-day.

The leading doctrines accepted among them to-day are, briefly, as follows:

They profess to believe in the Bible, but also to gain additional "light" from the "Book of Mormon," a collection of rubbish which one but needs to scan to see its utter absurdity and incongruity with the word of God. "The Book of Doctrines and Covenants," purporting to be a series of revelations, chiefly to Joseph Smith, is also considered inspired, as is "The Pearl of Great Price," which includes "The Book of Abraham," and other apocryphal works; while "prophets" and "apostles" abound who may at any time give forth further communications, all of equal authority with these.

They are really polytheist, and believe that there are many gods, but that all (save possibly the first - as to this their statements are conflicting) were at one time men, but gained their "exaltation" to divinity by their faithfulness in this state. It is the hope of each man to become a god eventually. Their gods are supposed to retain their human forms and functions, including sex.

It is in connection with this that polygamy comes in. This relationship is carried on eternally. The progeny of the gods and their numerous wives will constitute their "kingdom" in the ages to come. Woman's welfare depends on her being united to one of the faithful.

Instead of the Biblical doctrine of the Holy Trinity, they teach that there are three distinct Gods, who administer the affairs of the universe. God and Christ are said to have human bodies, parts and passions; while the Holy Ghost is omnipresent and has no body. The Holy Spirit is different, like light or electricity, the life principle of creation.

The preceding paper has outlined their teaching as to the salvation of the living. They also publicly proclaim salvation for the dead, to whom their kind of "gospel" is being preached, and who can be saved if their friends on earth will be baptized for them.

As to eschatology, they have a system of prophetic teaching embodying an exceedingly carnal view of the Millennium, ushered in by the return of Christ to regather Israel, including the ten tribes, to a Zion in America (!), and to destroy all the enemies of "the saints." This Zion is identified with Independence, Mo.[10] The dead will be raised, and will appear on the earth. Referring to this time, Parley Pratt says, in his "Voice of Warning," "Our father Adam will sit enthroned as the Ancient of Days," etc., ascribing the words of Dan. 7:9, 10 to refer to him!

A final judgment will conclude all things; but few will be eternally lost. There are three "degrees of glory," terrestrial, celestial, and telestial. In one of these all will eventually be found, except the "sons of perdition."

Such a system needs no attempt at refutation. It refutes itself. No child of God, who has at all apprehended the Cross, could be ensnared by it; but it is because many unwary and simple ones, anxious to be saved, but ignorant of God's way, are daily being entrapped by it, that this paper has been penned.

The Lord use it to deliver many from such "abominable idolatries!" (1 Pet. 4:3).

__________________

PRICE OF THIS TRACT, prepaid: Single copy, 4c; ten, 15c; 100, $1.25; 1,000, $10; special editions of larger numbers, less.

Every pastor should take Light on Mormonism, 25c; 10 for $2.50; sample with full Publication List, free. Address, The Utah Gospel Mission, 9277 Amesbury Ave., Cleveland, Ohio, U. S. A.

ENDNOTES:

[1] H. A. Ironside, "The Mormon's Mistake, or What is the Gospel?." This tract was originally published around 1896 by Utah Gospel Mission, Cleveland, Ohio. It is not in copyright. This updated edition is the same as the original except for minor design and punctuation changes. The Scripture references have been updated from Roman numerals to the current format, more footnotes have been added (and made into endnotes), and the layout and page numbers are slightly different. Insertions are bracketed or noted. Editor.

[2] See 1 Tim. 3:2-7; noting as shown in Titus 1:5-7, that "elder" and "bishop" are the same; the former word referring to the age of the man; the latter, to his office. As to all this, Mormonism is in dire confusion.

[3] I would commend to the notice of the reader who has difficulty here, "Fallen from Grace; or, Castaway," by W. Barker: also, "The Perseverance of the Saints," by F. W. Grant, 5 cents each; to be had of Loizeaux Bros., 19 W. 21st St., New York City.

[4] Amazingly, some updated editions of "The Mormon's Mistake" omit this statement regarding the fact that Christ was seen (1 Cor. 15:5) - as well as the entire paragraph which follows! (See above.) Editor.

[5] In other words, the resurrection appearances of Christ are not so much "doctrinal" or theological as they are historical - they are historical events. For further discussion see "Getting the Gospel Right," 19-20. Editor.

[6] Obviously Paul's gospel makes reference to "our sin" in 1 Cor. 15:3 and to "Cephas," etc. in 1 Cor. 15:5 (as Ironside noted in the previous section titled "Paul's Statement of the Real Gospel"). And so when Ironside says: "The subject of Paul's gospel has not a word about any one or any thing save Him," he's simply making the point that Christ alone is the subject of all four verbs in the sentence (1 Cor. 15:3b-5). Collins affirms that the "credal formula which [Paul] uses on 1 Cor 15:3-5 has Christ as its subject." (Raymond F. Collins, Studies on the First Letter to the Thessalonians, 340.) Similarly, Ciampa writes: "Christ is the subject of all the verbs from v. 3b to v. 8 except for the two in the relative clause of v. 6b (regarding the five hundred witnesses)." (Roy E. Ciampa, Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000], 744.) Editor.

[7] Although Ironside is of the opinion that the gospel is more properly divided into three heads than four, he clearly doesn't have a problem expressing "Paul's Statement of the Real Gospel" in four points as he does here. It's important to remember that the gospel can be divided and outlined in several ways as long as the basic content remains unchanged. For further discussion see "Getting the Gospel Right," 3-17. Editor.

[8] I.e. Greek hades; the realm of the dead or the grave. Editor.

[9] In other words, "because of our justification" (Rom. 4:25, NASB, italics added). Editor.

[10] I.e. Missouri. Editor.

Face It, It's Empty - by Charles Ryrie

2011-04-29T10:10:00.004-05:00

Tombs, graves, mausoleums, urns, ashes.

All are vivid reminders of something we do not like to think about. Something that angers us when someone’s life is cut short. Something that saddens us when someone we love dies. Something that makes us grieve, sometimes for years and years. We even avoid saying the word “died” and substitute “passed away” or “passed on.” Yet we visit the grave or tomb and place flowers there on Memorial Day.

Suppose on one of those visits, we found a hole in the ground where the grave was, and no casket. Where is the body? Could grave robbers have been at work? Was there some legitimate reason to exhume the body? What gives?

But an empty hole still leaves us wondering what happened to the body. Was it still in the casket wherever it was, or was the casket empty?

That’s what happened on Easter. The loved one (Jesus) was put in a tomb. A large stone (not like a rock, but like a solid upright wheel) was rolled in front of the entrance. No one person could have rolled that stone away by himself or herself. But there it was—a hole in the wall of a tomb, and inside no body, only the wrappings used to prepare the body for burial. Face it—it’s empty.

No explanation, except one, makes any sense at all.

Well, some say, the whole story was made up. It’s a myth. How do you know? You weren’t there. But a number of people, men and women, were there and said it was true. Not only was there no body in the tomb, but many saw and recognized Jesus walking along a road with two others, inside a room twice, outside by a lake cooking breakfast, and outside on a hill. He also appeared to his half-brother, James, who was not a believer until this moment, and he appeared to over five hundred people. A myth? Face it—that’s not even a good try.

An illusion? Impossible that so many different people under so many different circumstances and at so many different times could have come up with the same illusion. Face it—that’s the myth.

Maybe there were grave robbers in Jesus’ time. If so, they certainly had to be experts. They had to get past the soldiers guarding the tomb. They had to roll the heavy stone away. They had to dispose of the body some way. Face it—not too likely.

The soldiers were asleep, they said, so somebody actually did sneak in and steal the body. But that story was concocted by the religious authorities who bribed the soldiers to say that’s what happened even though they knew full well it was not true. Face it—even in the first century people could be bought to lie. Some say that his spirit lives on, and that’s what counts—not whether his body was raised. But what kind of spirit would that be? An untrue spirit if he didn’t rise from the dead. Jesus several times predicted that he would die and be raised from the dead (Matthew 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:28). Not only an untrue spirit but an inoperative one. Yes, memories can sometimes motivate us, but memories cannot do tangible things, and memories eventually fade. My grandfather, long gone, used to give me $25 each semester when I left home to return to college. I still admire him, but I don’t get any more money from him. Face it—the Easter spirit does not guarantee much. The Easter person can and does.

If Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead, he could not send the Holy Spirit, he does not now pray for us, he cannot give gifts and help, he cannot empty the tombs and graves in which we will be placed, and our faith is in a false gospel (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17). Face it—without a resurrected Christ, our present is without his help, and our future is bleak.

Kids have great fun playing cops and robbers. Fun, that is, until they hear a noise they did not make and cannot explain. Maybe there is a real robber in the bushes. Time to quit playing and get real. People play religion, creating their own god and choosing what appeals to them to believe. But suppose the biblical report is true and the tomb is empty. It’s time to get real. He did rise from the dead and he is alive today. I can ignore him, reject him, or believe him, but ultimately I cannot escape him. And there is no better time to begin a person-to-person relationship with him than now. Easter celebrates his actual, factual, historical resurrection from the dead. His death three days before paid the penalty for all our sins. Alive he now forgives all who will receive him through faith. “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live” (John 11:25). “Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life” (John 5:24).

Face it—it’s empty. And because it is, you can come to a living Christ and have forgiveness of sins and possession of eternal life.

The Grave Robber

2011-04-27T19:36:00.032-05:00

"O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory
through our Lord Jesus Christ."

~ 1 Corinthians 15:55, KJV ~

Andy Stanley is "Big" on the Gospel

2011-04-25T16:34:00.036-05:00

What is the essence of the gospel? What's the take away? What's the bottom line? What's the irreducible minimum?

Andy Stanley, senior pastor of Northpoint Community Church in Alpharetta, Georgia, discusses these and other questions in his dynamic message "Big Church, Part 4: Big Audience". Notice what he says:

"The apostle Paul was a very educated, probably wealthy man. Because he was a Roman citizen he had access to things that even some of his brothers in Jerusalem did not have access to. He had access to education they didn't have access to. And because of his brilliance he was able for our benefit to extrapolate from Christian Judaism what needed to be transferred to the Gentile world. In fact, he continually got into trouble, as we'll see next week, with the Jews in Jerusalem because he had a Gentile version of Christianity. But the thing that God raised him up to do was to help those of us who don't have an Old Testament background, who weren't looking for a Messiah, for the people in his day that weren't looking for a Messiah, to understand: What is the essence of the gospel? What is the essence of this message? What is - what's the take away? What's the bottom line? What's the irreducible minimum? And over and over and over the apostle Paul would go into Gentile regions - especially in Athens and Ephesus - and say: 'Even if you're not Jewish, even if you never understand the Old Testament, here's the thing you have to understand. Here's the new thing that God has done in our midst.'

In the book of 1 Corinthians [Paul] gives us the synopsis of this message, the take away for all of us who are Gentiles, who are non-Jewish people, who don't have an Old Testament background, who weren't raised to be on the lookout for a Messiah, and in this passage he defines as clear as anywhere in the Scripture exactly what the gospel is, exactly what the message is that had to be transferred from generation to generation. Here's how he describes it in 1 Corinthians. This is a letter that he wrote during that time when he was traveling around the world to the ekklesia, the gathering, the church, in Corinth. Here's what he says to them:

'Now brothers and sisters, I want to remind you' [1 Cor. 15:1a, TNIV] - because he's already been there, now he's writing to them - 'I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you' [1 Cor. 15:1a, TNIV] - so now he's about to define for us what is the gospel - 'which you received and on which you have taken your stand' [1 Cor. 15:1b, TNIV] - and now he gives it to us in no uncertain terms, skipping over to verse 3, 'for what I received' [1 Cor. 15:3a, TNIV] - and that is, received from God and received from the disciples, the apostles, and received during all that time of preparation for his ministry, 'for what I received I passed on to you as of first importance' [1 Cor. 15:3a, TNIV] - so here is the most important thing, if you forget everything else, if you lose sight of everything else, if you don't understand anything else, here's what is of first importance: 'that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried' [1 Cor. 15:3b-4a, TNIV] - that's how we know He died, that's what you do to a real dead person, you bury them, okay, this is important: 'and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas' [1 Cor. 15:4-5a, TNIV] - and who's Cephas? Anybody know? Peter, that's right - 'to Cephas/Peter and then to the twelve' [1 Cor. 15:5b, TNIV] - the twelve disciples. 'After that He appeared to more than 500 of the brothers and sisters at the same time' [1 Cor. 15:6a, TNIV] - you didn't know that, did you? That Peter, that Paul rather, realized and discovered in talking to all the people in Jerusalem that there were points after Jesus' resurrection - He didn't appear just to one here and two there and three there that thought they had some kind of, you know, mysterious vision of a resurrected Jesus. [Paul] said: 'No, you need to understand, you Corinthians, there was a time when the resurrected Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at the same time!' And then listen to this next part: 'most of whom are still living' [1 Cor. 15:6b, TNIV]. Now this little piece of document [i.e. the book of 1 Corinthians] was written probably in the early 50's A.D. or 55 [A.D.], about 20 or 20 something years after the events. And [Paul] says to the Christians in Corinth: 'Look, this resurrection - I know that's hard to believe, it's hard to get your arms around that, it's hard to embrace that fact that somebody would rise from the dead, but you need to know that there were over 500 people at one time who saw the resurrected Jesus, and if you want to get yourself a boat ticket and go to Jerusalem, you can find most of those people, they are still alive and walking around today' - 'though some have fallen asleep' [1 Cor. 15:6b, TNIV] - some of them have died in the ensuing years. 'And then He appeared to James' [1 Cor. 15:7a, TNIV] the brother of Jesus, 'and then to all the apostles' [1 Cor. 15:7b, TNIV]. And then listen to Paul now as he brings it back to his personal ministry: 'and last of all He appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born, for I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle' [1 Cor. 15:8-9a, TNIV] - now Paul why would you say that? You spent, you know, 10 or 12 years of your life traveling around in a dangerous part of the world proclaiming the message of the Messiah, that the Messiah has come - 'because I persecuted the church of God' [1 Cor. 15:9a, TNIV]. There's our word again. 'I persecuted the gathering, the ekklesia, the movement of God. I persecuted it. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace towards me was not without effect' [1 Cor. 15:9b-10a, TNIV]. Isn't that powerful? He says to the Corinthians: 'I don't know why God chose me to bring this message to you. I don't know why of all the people that should have been chosen to make a difference, to plant these ekklesias, these gatherings - I am the least of everyone that God could have chosen, but He chose me and He chose me by His grace!' And that was central in the message of the apostle Paul.

And so he brings to us in no uncertain terms, those of us who don't have an Old Testament background, those of us who weren't raised to look for a Messiah, those of us who weren't well versed with the Scripture, he brings to us the bottom line - the thing you can't ignore. And here's what it is; it's four simple statements: 'Christ died for our sins', 'He was buried', 'He was raised', 'He appeared'. That's it. 'Christ died for our sins', 'He was buried', 'He was raised', 'He appeared'. Let's just say it together, say it with me. Ready? 'Christ died for our sins', 'He was buried', 'He was raised', 'He appeared'. Again: 'Christ died for our sins', 'He was buried', 'He was raised', 'He appeared'.

Here's what [Paul] was saying; he was saying: 'Look, I know, you know it was seven literal days of creation and what happened to the dinosaurs - don't worry about that. Here's what you need to know: Christ died for your sins, He was buried, He was raised, He appeared.' [Someone might object:] 'I know, but all the - I was reading like in Revelation and there was like all these horses and fire and the world comes to an end...' It's like [Paul's] going: 'Okay, we'll get to that. Here's what you need to know: Christ died for your sin, and He was buried - that's how we know He really died, and He was raised, and He appeared, and the way we know that He really rose from the dead is because He appeared. He died on the cross for your sins, and He was buried, and He was raised, and He appeared.' And yeah you got a lot of questions. And yeah you have never read the whole Old Testament. And yeah you can't really put together the way that the - all the different accounts of the resurrection, and there's lots of questions and you don't understand certain verses of the Bible and some of it's so complicated, and you think you have to go to seminary, and sometimes, you know, everybody else is to where they need to be in the Bible and you haven't even found your Bible yet, and there's just so much information - and the apostle Paul says: 'Okay, okay, okay, okay, let me just, here's the thing you got to know; here's the irreducible minimum, here's the part you just can't ever lose sight of: Christ died for your sins, and He was buried; He was raised from the dead, and He was seen' - and that's the gospel; that's the starting point. That's not the point you get to after you get all your questions answered. That's the thing you wrestle with. If you want to wrestle with whether or not Christianity is true, don't look at the Christians who disappointed you; don't attend a church that puts you to sleep; don't worry about the fact that your parents brought you up to be a Christian and then got divorced and your Dad ran off with somebody else. [Paul] says: 'Look, all that stuff is a distraction. If you're going to wrestle with Christianity; if you're gonna wrestle with the truth of the gospel - wrestle with this one thing: Did Christ die for your sins? And was He buried? And was He raised from the dead? And was He seen? That's it. That's the starting point. That's the stopping point. That's the gospel. That's the foundation. That's what it's all about.' And the message [Paul] took from Jerusalem after he disseminated through all the different stories, and all the things that he learned about Jesus, and of his Old Testament background, and all that he had been brought up to believe as a little Jewish boy - he would say to the believers in Corinth and Ephesus and all over that world, 'Here's what you need to know: Christ was sent into this world to die for your sins; He rose from the dead; He has been seen - He appeared.'

So you know what the challenge is for you and for me? Is to ask the question: Have you ever embraced that personally? You see, most of us as children, many of us as children, we - somebody sat us down, our parents sat us down, and they explained it to us, we don't know what they explained but at the moment in your life, at the moment in your life that you finally got it: Christ died for my sins and He rose from the dead - at that moment you entered into a faith relationship with your heavenly Father. For some of you it was at a camp, for some of you it was after a church service, for some of you it was at an FCA gathering or a Young Life gathering, for some of you it was at a church gathering, for some of you it was in a home, for some of you it was watching someone on television or online, for some of you it might have been at a Billy Graham crusade, but at some point the thing we all have in common is it dawned on us - not that we understood the whole Bible, not that we could work through all the discrepancies in the Gospel accounts - but it dawned on us: Jesus died for my sin, and He was buried - He was really dead, and He rose from the dead, and He was really alive, because somebody saw Him. Paul says over 500 people at one time, and if you don't believe me he would say: 'Go to Jerusalem, they are still there walking in the streets today.' That's what brings us together. That's the unifying theme. That's what we have in common with Christians all over this city, all over this country, all over the world: that Christ is the Son of God - the living Son of God, who died for our sins, was buried, rose from the dead, and was seen.

So here's my question for you as we wrap this up: Has there ever been that time in your life, that 'ah ha' moment for you when you said: 'I see this, I believe it, and I embrace it'? Have you ever expressed to your heavenly Father: 'Thank you, that Christ died for my sin, He was buried, He rose from the dead, He lives today and I want to embrace Him as my personal Savior.' Has there ever been that moment for you? I know you have questions that are so sophisticated I will never be able to answer them for you satisfactorily - in a satisfactory way. But the real issue is: What have you done with the gospel that Christ died for your sin and rose from the dead? If there has never been a moment in your life where you have embraced that personally I want to give you that time, I want to give you that moment today. And today is the perfect day because you're in the gathering. This is part of the movement. This is the message that brings us together. And if during this message there was something that clicked and it dawned on you that somehow all the other questions kind of, you know, filtered away and there was just this one big thing in front of you and you think: 'You know what? I think I believe that!' Then perhaps this is the day for you to embrace this message and to join the ekklesia - the church - the movement of God."[1]

ENDNOTES:

[1] Andy Stanley, "Big Church, Part 4: Big Audience," January 30, 2011, http://northpoint.org/messages/big-church/part-4 [27:28 minutes - 38:41 minutes]. For additional information see the Free Grace Free Speech "Resources" page.

Up from the Grave He Arose!

2011-04-24T10:41:00.013-05:00

The Overlooked Fact of the Gospel

2011-04-21T13:29:00.004-05:00

Easter is a time when we rightly celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But in our rush towards the resurrection, let's not bypass the burial.

In his sermon "The Overlooked Fact of the Gospel," Bill MacFarland reminds us of the importance of Christ's burial in the gospel story. He writes:

"Notice that the burial of Jesus is an important event, an important fact of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Just as Jesus predicted his suffering, just as he prepared his disciples to know that he was going to be raised up again on the third day, he also predicted his burial...

The letters of the New Testament, even the preaching in the book of Acts, also emphasize the place of the burial in the gospel story...

And then notice that all four of the gospel accounts have paragraphs in them that describe the event of the burial. There are not very many episodes in Jesus' life which are described by all four of these gospel accounts."

Please click on the link above to read the full article.

In Defense of the Gospel, Part 2

2011-04-19T15:44:00.035-05:00

Continued from "In Defense of the Gospel, Part 1".

Question: "Does your view of the gospel have any historical credibility?"

Answer: This question was originally an objection rather than a question. Last year a no-burial gospel advocate wrote to me and one of the things he said was (to paraphrase): "Your view of the gospel has no historical credibility or tradition."[1] At the time I simply replied by saying that if the apostle Paul and the early church held to it (cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-11; 2 Thess. 2:14-15), that's enough historical credibility for me!

I had all but forgotten about this objection until recently when I happened upon the book Walvoord: A Tribute.[2] The book is a compilation of articles written by faculty members of Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) as a Festschrift to John Walvoord to commemorate his 30th anniversary as the Seminary's second president. A statement in the book caught my attention. Notice the following analysis by Dr. John W. Reed (currently the Senior Professor Emeritus of Pastoral Ministries and Director Emeritus of the D. Min. Program at DTS) in his chapter titled "The Pastor as a Theologian". Dr. Reed writes:

"Throughout the history of the church the biblical definition of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 has been the accepted view."[3]

Some groundless gospel advocates might try to blunt this statement by arguing that they too believe the gospel is "in" 1 Corinthians 15:1-5.[4] But if the gospel concludes at 1 Corinthians 15:4a with the words "and that He was raised..." (as groundless gospel advocates suppose), why does Reed include verse 5? Reed includes verse 5 in the definition of the gospel precisely because it is part of the gospel. This is why a few pages later he goes on to say: "The biblical gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:1-5".[5]

Groundless gospel advocates want us to believe that their view - the gospel of the non-buried and never-seen deceiver savior - has been the accepted view throughout the history of the church. But Dr. Reed tells us otherwise. Down through the centuries, orthodox Christianity has affirmed Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and appearances in the biblical gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-5). Throughout the history of the church this has been the accepted view.

Continue on to "In Defense of the Gospel, Part 3".

ENDNOTES:

[1] For a list of other groundless objections see "Beware of the Wolves Within".

[2] Donald K. Campbell, Editor, Walvoord: A Tribute (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982).

[3] John W. Reed, Ibid., 274, italics added; cf. Scot Mcknight, "The Gospel and Orthodoxy". In reference to his statement above, Reed immediately goes on to say: "That definition [i.e. 1 Cor. 15:1-5] focuses on the death and resurrection of Christ". (John W. Reed, Donald K. Campbell, Ed., Walvoord: A Tribute, 274.) Do you see the biblical balance here? The gospel emphasizes Christ's death and resurrection without excluding His burial and appearances. This is a key insight. Dean Henry Alford affirms: "I declare...the (whole) Gospel: not merely the Death and Resurrection of Christ, which were [en protois/priority] parts of it". (Alford, The Greek Testament, 4 Vols., 2:602, bold his, ellipsis added; cf. Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, 2 Vols., 2:229.) For further discussion see the following articles: "The Burial of Christ," "First Among Equals," and "Getting the Gospel Right" (particularly pages 16 and 24 in the PDF document).

[4] For example, a few years ago one groundless gospel advocate named knetknight (aka Stephen Stark) started a forum discussion on 1 Corinthians 15 under the heading "I don't get it!" Mr. Stark began the discussion by saying: "I'm one who believes that 'the gospel' of salvation is presented by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:1-5. I've long held the view that what must be believed here is Jesus' death for our sins, and his resurrection, since those two statement [sic] are singled out with 'according to the scriptures'". (Stephen Stark, "1 Corinthians 15:1 et al," StudyLight Forums, bold added, comment posted on October 16, 2008, 2:37pm.) This is the classic groundless gospel position. They say that the passage in 1 Corinthians 15 only contains "certain elements of" the gospel that the reader must decipher using the "amazing triangular testimony" and "virtual mirror reflections" of Stegall's new triangle - although other decryption devices are allowed. (Tom Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 19, 286, 529; cf. "The Strange Beliefs of Stegall's System".) Partial gospel advocates like Mr. Stark and Mr. Stegall teach that the gospel elements one must decipher are Christ's death for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3a) and His resurrection from the dead (1 Cor. 15:4a) but none of the other elements mentioned in the passage - not His burial (1 Cor. 15:4a), not the third day (1 Cor. 15:4b), not His appearances (1 Cor. 15:5), and not even those parts about 'according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3b, 4b)! These other elements are considered to be something like "excess baggage" (Zane Hodges, "How To Lead People To Christ, Part 2: Our Invitation To Respond," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 14 [Spring 2001]: 17.) in evangelism and are denied in the groundless gospel.

[5] John W. Reed, Donald K. Campbell, Ed., Walvoord: A Tribute, 279.

Ryrie Got the Gospel Right

2011-04-17T11:33:00.010-05:00

Charles C. Ryrie

In the article "The Full Gospel and Nothing More," Michael Svigel (now the director of the Creative Ministries department of Insight for Living and Assistant Professor of Theological Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary) shares how Dr. Ryrie would open his class on soteriology - by getting the gospel right!

Svigel writes: "In Bible college I sat under Dr. Charles Ryrie for a course in soteriology - the doctrine of salvation. He opened the first lecture with this instruction: 'Take out a piece of paper. You have less than one minute to share the gospel with a stranger, or he'll be lost for eternity. Write down what that person needs to believe to be saved. Start now!'"

Click on the link above to read the rest of this insightful article.

Beware of the Wolves Within Free Grace

2011-04-12T19:53:00.136-05:00

A dangerous new attack on the gospel has begun. There are Free Grace people in our midst who are tearing apart the gospel of salvation. The apostle Paul predicted it when he wrote: "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears" (Acts 20:29-31). Who are these attackers and what are they saying? As Fred Chay has written in the recent Free Grace Alliance (FGA) newsletter, "it is imperative that we be aware so that we can beware of such goings on."[1]

A Voice from the Past

Let me begin by reviewing the glorious gospel of salvation that some among us are attacking. And don't just take my word on the gospel. I think one of the past presidents of Dallas Theological Seminary will be a bit more persuasive than me in this regard - even if we are saying the same thing. Have I got your attention yet? I truly hope so. In The Theological Wordbook, co-authored by "four Dallas Theological Seminary stalwarts and theological statesmen - Donald K. Campbell, Wendell G. Johnston, John F. Walvoord, and John A. Witmer"[2] and subtitled "What the Bible Teaches on 200 Theological Terms and Their Relevance for Today," Donald Campbell (the third president of Dallas Theological Seminary)[3] writes the following in his discussion of the term "Gospel":

"The gospel message is simply that 'Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve' (1 Cor. 15:3-5). Paul said this was the gospel he preached to the Corinthians and it was the message by which they received salvation."[4]

That's pretty simple isn't it? Notice that Campbell doesn't try to remove the burial, the appearances, the third day, or those parts about "the Scriptures" from the gospel. He doesn't try to reduce it and he doesn't try to redefine it. Instead, he just repeats it. He lets the Bible speak and leaves it at that. His attitude is: "Paul said it, I believe it, and that settles it!"[5]

A Fierce New Attack

But in contrast to Donald Campbell, a few Free Grace people have a problem with Paul's gospel and are actively speaking out against it. Allow me to be more specific. I am going to cite some chilling examples of how groundless (no-burial) gospel advocates are attacking not only the gospel of salvation but also those who stand on its truth (cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-2; 2 Thess. 2:14-15).

WOLF ATTACK #1: In his book The Gospel of the Christ, Tom Stegall (the main proponent of the groundless gospel) not only mischaracterizes adherents to the biblical gospel as a small group of extremists, but he also declares them to be downright wrong. Notice what he says: "There are a few extreme Free Grace advocates who, in their overreaction to the crossless gospel, have concluded wrongly that Christ's burial and post-resurrection appearances to Peter and the twelve (1 Cor. 15:5) are also required content for saving faith."[6] (I find it incredibly ironic that Stegall would label any Free Grace advocates "extreme" considering he's the one who has used a pagan symbol to redefine the gospel!)[7] With this statement Stegall attacks not only the gospel but also the conclusions of at least[8] "four Dallas Theological Seminary stalwarts and theological statesmen" including Donald Campbell, the seminary's third president.

WOLF ATTACK #2: Groundless gospel advocates Stephen and Rachel Stark make similar statements on their blog "The Land of Reason". For example, Stephen writes: "JP has NO solid basis for his unique view whatsoever...JP maintains that the lost are required to believe in Jesus' death, burial, resurrection, and appearances (1 Cor. 15) in order to be saved. I disagree on the burial and appearances aspects."[9] Stephen's claim that I have "NO solid basis...whatsoever" for my beliefs is countered by the fact that even he cites the passage in 1 Corinthians 15 as the basis for my beliefs! Apparently, Mr. Stark does not think that 1 Corinthians 15 provides a solid basis for the gospel. Tragically, this does indeed seem to be the groundless gospel position.[10] Furthermore, notice how Stephen goes on to mischaracterize my position as "unique". Yet I think he would have to admit that when a view has been held by the leadership of Dallas Theological Seminary it is hardly "unique".

WOLF ATTACK #3: Rachel derides my position in the Free Grace gospel debate as crazy and unorthodox saying: "JP, newsflash: Your view is fringe, so fringe in fact that you're the ONLY ONE who holds it!"[11] She goes on to label it a "unique, novel, and incorrect view of the gospel".[12] With these remarks Rachel is not only highlighting her disavowal of the biblical gospel (i.e. she does not hold to it as the apostle Paul instructs in 1 Cor. 15:1-2 and 2 Thess. 2:14-15), but also her ignorance of the voices in the Free Grace gospel debate (as well as the voices in the evangelical community at large) - for numerous scholars do in fact hold to the same view of the gospel as myself (e.g. Donald Campbell, et al. - "each one a skilled Bible expositor and theologian" as Roy B. Zuck affirms).[13] Groundless gospel advocates would have us believe that Free Grace theology has always affirmed the non-buried and never-seen deceiver savior of the groundless gospel - but this is hardly the case! In all my study of Free Grace theology I have not found any Free Grace theologians before Dennis Rokser and Tom Stegall who have denied Christ's burial and appearances in the gospel.[14] (Even Earl Radmacher affirms that the content of the gospel includes Christ's burial and appearances as stated in 1 Cor. 15:3-5.)[15] I challenge groundless gospel advocates to cite even one example. At the risk of mixing metaphors let me say that the groundless gospel is "the new kid on the block" who is trying to bully his way around. In other words, groundless gospel advocates are the wolves we have to watch out for.

WOLF ATTACK #4: An outspoken member of Stegall's congregation has repeatedly accused me of heresy. On more than one occasion Vince Cullen (also known online as "MC") has told me that I hold to "a false gospel"[16] and "heresy".[17] Yet when I asked him what I've said that the apostle Paul didn't say, Mr. Cullen could only murmur: "I don't want to talk about it anymore."

WOLF ATTACK #5: More recently another Stegall supporter wrote to me and said: "As lovingly as I can say this, your exegesis on 1 Cor. 15 is deplorable. It is sloppy which has led you to sloppy theology. Simply put, your teaching on the gospel is not only false but also heresy."[18]

WOLF ATTACK #6: The last time I talked to my Dad he was attending a pro-groundless church called Duluth Bible Church (pastored by none other than groundless gospel advocate Dennis Rokser - a strong Stegall supporter).[19] In the conversation with my Dad he said to me: "Your gospel is not the same as our church's gospel."[20] Wait a minute - "our church's gospel"? That's quite a fallible standard isn't it? Unfortunately, a person's church will oftentimes come to have more authority in their life than the Word of God. By way of contrast, from the time that I first got involved in the Free Grace gospel debate I determined in my heart and was convinced that the biblical gospel was true no matter what anyone else or any church said about it (cf. Rom. 3:4)! It's telling that my Dad didn't say, "Your gospel is not the same as the biblical gospel." (He couldn't say this because my gospel is the same as the biblical gospel. Instead of making the Bible the standard he made his church the standard and said: "Your gospel [i.e. 1 Cor. 15:3-5] is not the same as our church's gospel.") Notice that my Dad just admitted that his church's groundless gospel is a different gospel than the biblical gospel (2 Cor. 11:4, ESV; Gal. 1:6-10; cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-5)!

These are tragic examples of how groundless gospel advocates are speaking out against the biblical gospel and those who hold to it.

Free Grace movement: Watch out for the wolves within!

ENDNOTES:

[1] Fred Chay, Free Grace Alliance newsletter (April 2011), http://www.freegracealliance.com/pdf/FGA%20April_2011Newsletter.pdf (accessed April 10, 2011), bold his; cf. Col. 2:8, KJV.

[2] Charles R. Swindoll, General Ed., Don Campbell, Wendell Johnston, John Walvoord, John Witmer, The Theological Wordbook [Nashville: Word Publishing, 2000], "Foreword," xi.

[3] Donald K. Campbell is currently president emeritus of Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) and professor emeritus of Bible Exposition. He has served over 50 years at DTS. In addition, he has served on the boards of numerous evangelical ministries, schools, mission agencies; has written a number of books and contributed to numerous articles and book reviews in theological journals, especially Bibliotheca Sacra.

[4] Donald K. Campbell ("DKC"), The Theological Wordbook, 142. For more information on Donald Campbell see "Celebrating 80 Years: Highlights from the History of Dallas Theological Seminary, 1924-2004" and scroll down to where it says "Third President". (Notice the picture of John Walvoord placing his hand on the head of a kneeling Donald Campbell during the inauguration ceremony.)

[5] In light of the fact that the apostle Paul received his gospel directly from Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11-12), one could also say: "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!"

[6] Tom Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 375, bold added. In his book Stegall makes it a habit of shredding the biblical gospel. Following are a few more examples. He writes: "the burial and post-resurrection appearances of Christ are not technically part of the gospel, and therefore not part of the required content of saving faith" (Ibid., 578); "the cross and resurrection are elements of the gospel in distinction to the burial and appearances" (Ibid., 579); "The interpretation that views the four clauses in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 as...all being necessary components of the gospel, is at odds with the entire pattern of the New Testament." (Ibid., 588); "the Lord's burial and appearances are not the required content of saving faith...they are not technically part of the gospel" (Ibid., 589). For a discussion of Stegall's shift away from biblical orthodoxy and how he got the gospel changed at his church see "Getting the Gospel Right," endnote 83 (pages 33-34 in the PDF file).

[7] See "The Strange Beliefs of Stegall's System".

[8] Notice the emphasis: "Stegall attacks...the conclusions of at least...four Dallas Theological Seminary stalwarts" (italics added). Among evangelical theologians I have not found anyone who would disagree with Campbell's statement except for a small handful of groundless gospel advocates led by Dennis Rokser and Tom Stegall. For further discussion see "Getting the Gospel Right," "Things of First Importance," and "Three Views on the Gospel of Grace".

[9] Stephen Stark, comment under the post "Beheading Hodges Hydra - Part 3 of 3," http://thelandofreason.blogspot.com/2008/10/beheading-hodges-hydra-part-3-of-3.html (accessed April 10, 2011), caps his, bold added.

[10] For further discussion see "Getting the Gospel Right," 2-3; cf. "The Strange Beliefs of Stegall's System".

[11] Rachel Stark, comment under the post "Beheading Hodges Hydra - Part 3 of 3," http://thelandofreason.blogspot.com/2008/10/beheading-hodges-hydra-part-3-of-3.html (accessed April 10, 2011), caps and bold hers. Note: In Rachel's original comment her entire sentence is in bold print.

[12] Ibid, italics hers, bold added.

[13] Roy B. Zuck, Managing Ed., Don Campbell, Wendell Johnston, John Walvoord, John Witmer, The Theological Wordbook, "Preface," xiii. The full statement by Zuck is as follows: "These men, each one a skilled Bible expositor and theologian, are retired faculty members of Dallas Theological Seminary." (Ibid.) For further discussion see "Three Views on the Gospel of Grace," "Getting the Gospel Right," and "Things of First Importance".

[14] Keep in mind the difference between when a truth is denied in the gospel and when a truth is implied in the gospel.

[15] Radmacher writes: "What was the content of the good news that especially Paul was commissioned to present? He stated this clearly in 1 Corinthians 15:1, 3-5: 'Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel [euangelion]...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.'" (Earl Radmacher, Salvation, 116, italics, brackets, and ellipsis his.) Elsewhere Radmacher writes: "Hodges puts it simply: 'What faith really is in biblical language, is receiving the testimony of God. It is the inward conviction that what God says to us in the gospel is true. That - and that alone - is saving faith.' This is the faith that saves from eternal destruction because it has the gospel as its object (cf. 1 Cor. 1:21; 15:1-5). It would be even more consistent to talk about faith in the saving gospel rather than about saving faith." (Earl Radmacher, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33, "First Response To 'Faith According To The Apostle James' By John F. MacArthur, Jr." [March 1990]: 38-39, italics his.)

[16] Vince Cullen, bold added. As a member of Stegall's congregation, Vince was one of the initial casualties of the groundless gospel. Not surprisingly, Mr. Cullen wants us to believe that he has always affirmed the no-burial gospel. In a comment on Stephen and Rachel's blog "The Land of Reason," Cullen says: "I have been saved by faith in the death and resurrection of Christ for the forgiveness of my sins for 30 years according to ROM 4:25 'He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.' I have [recently] even went through my Bible and wrote '2 key points' next to every verse I could find that only lists the death and resurrection. In fact the "Gospel" as JP would like to define it seems to be lacking is [sic] its entirety throughout the New Testament." ("MC," comment under the post "Clearing the Haze of Always," http://thelandofreason.blogspot.com/2008/10/clearing-haze-of-always.html, bold added.) Now compare this statement by Cullen with another statement he made back in 2001. Ten years ago Cullen self-published a booklet he had written called Kingdom Rewards. In the "INTRODUCTION" Cullen writes: "The topic of this booklet is controversial among the realm of true born-again believers, yet it is not an issue that determines in anyway the outcome of the soul in regard to eternal salvation. The author of this booklet believes that salvation (the total forgiveness of all sins) is absolutely a free gift (Rom. 6:23), bought and paid for entirely by the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Cor. 15:1-4; 1 Peter 2:24)" (Vince M. Cullen, Kingdom Rewards, 1, bold added.) Although I do not completely agree with Vince's statement here (because 1 Corinthians 15:3 cites only Christ's death as being "for our sins"), it still shows that Cullen has not always affirmed the no-burial gospel as he would have us believe. In 2001 Vince said that salvation was through the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, but since at least 2008 Vince has been excluding the burial!

[17] Ibid.

[18] Liam Moran, bold added. Unfortunately Liam is one of the latest casualties of the groundless gospel. His drift away from the biblical gospel is a matter of documentation. Let me be more specific. Several years ago Liam left a comment on my blog regarding an article I had written called "The Tragedy of the Groundless Gospel" (the precursor to my article "Getting the Gospel Right"). This is what Liam said: "JP, I am deeply appreciative of all the research and exegesis you have done on this. Your articles are very well written, well researched and well contended for." How strange that Liam is now branding this same exegesis "deplorable" and "sloppy" - even "heresy"! As sad and surprising as it may seem, Liam Moran has gone groundless. At one time he affirmed the biblical gospel but has since been swayed to accept Stegall's new teaching so that he now says, "While I may have differences with Tom on various matters, in terms of...the gospel, and free grace theology, I stand shoulder to shoulder with my arms locked." Liam has given the right hand of fellowship to a false gospel.

[19] Dennis Rokser wrote the "FOREWORD" to Tom Stegall's book The Gospel of the Christ - calling it a "scripturally-sound, exegetically-based volume by my dear friend, Thomas Stegall." (Dennis Rokser, The Gospel of the Christ, 15.) As I have said before, it is telling that no one besides Stegall's former pastor and fellow groundless gospel advocate endorsed his book.

[20] Bruce Perreault, bold added. My Dad is yet another casualty of the groundless gospel. In 2007 after Stegall removed Christ's burial from his church's doctrinal statement on the "SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION," my Dad said something like: "I don't see why Tom had to take the burial out." Now several years later, my Dad has unfortunately come to embrace the groundless gospel.

For more information see: "Looking a Wolf in the Mouth" by D. Scott Henderson.

Top 10 Picks for 2010

2010-12-31T23:19:00.039-06:00

This year a number of new posts have been featured here at Free Grace Free Speech, and as 2010 draws to a close I want to highlight some of my personal favorites! I thank the Lord for this ministry, and give him all the praise and glory for it: "Not to us, O LORD, not to us, but to Your name give glory because of Your lovingkindness, because of Your truth" (Ps. 115:1).

Here are my top 10 favorite picks for 2010:*

1. The Gospel in 4 Simple Points - An excellent sermon on the gospel.

2. Things of First Importance - Which biblical truths are the most important ones?

3. First Among Equals - Discusses the theological weight of the various elements of the gospel.

4. Jesus Martinez - Peter Hann's contribution to the Free Grace gospel debate.

5. The Deceiver Savior - Exposes the false Christ of the groundless gospel.

6. Fishers of Men, Part 1 - Peter Hann encourages Christians to evangelize.

7. The Facts of Faith - Keith Krell preaches on the contents of saving faith.

8. Which Jesus? Which Jesus must a person believe in for eternal life?

9. The Strange Beliefs of Stegall's System - What pagan symbol does Tom Stegall use to redefine the gospel?

10. In Defense of the Gospel, Part 1 - A series that answers various questions about the gospel.

* Posts are arranged chronologically beginning with the oldest.

Right Motives, Part 4

2010-12-17T17:38:00.011-06:00

Right Motives in Friendships and Relationships

By Peter Hann

In this fourth part of the series I'll give some examples on how to do things for friends and relationships with the right motives.

For example, my birthday is December 13th and on Saturday the 18th I'm having my birthday celebration at a pizza place for the dinner. I'm inviting guests who are my closest friends.

A wrong motive in friendships and also a wrong motive to invite a friend or family member to my birthday would be if I'm thinking in the back of my mind, "All right, I'll invite so and so because that way I'll get more presents!" If that were the case I would not be thinking of the person as an individual. The right motive would be to invite someone whether they could bring a gift or not. It doesn't matter if they could bring a gift. My motive should be to invite them because I care about them as a person. Also, if I'm thinking about only getting goodies and presents, I'm only thinking of feeding my flesh (or sin nature). In Galatians 6:8 it says, "For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life." Furthermore, in friendships and inviting someone there should be "no strings attached" or "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" or "I'll love you if you do this for me". As believers our love for others especially fellow believers should be very unconditional like the love of Christ was very unconditional - especially when Jesus said: "There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends" (Jn. 16:13, NLT).

An example of a wrong motive in relationships is when the guy is nice to the gal and wants to marry her because she is very pretty and very attractive and not marrying her for the person she is but for what she looks like, where again it's conditional love and strings attached type love. Because say that pretty gal got throat cancer a few years later or ended up with a physical deformity or just age itself caught up with her and her husband thought she was no longer pretty or attractive or if the husband thought she couldn't have children or all these things I just mentioned where the husband no longer finds her attractive and then he lusts for a younger prettier woman. That's conditional, strings attached type love. He doesn't care about that woman as a person. He is thinking about feeding his flesh like Galatians 6:8 mentions. Paul gives an example to husbands in Ephesians 5:25 which reads: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her."

So to conclude in friendships and relationships, handle them both with Christ's love.

Right Motives, Part 3

2010-12-16T17:43:00.009-06:00

Right Motives In Prayer

By Peter Hann

Sometimes when I've sinned in my Christian walk my confession before the Lord has not always been with the right motives, and that's why I've titled this article "Right Motives In Prayer". I'll gives some examples of prayer with the right motives as well as prayer with the wrong motives.

One example of a wrong motive in prayer is to say I've sinned against the Lord (whether it be complaining, bitterness towards someone, lust, lying, etc.) and I come before the Lord and confess it like 1 John 1:9 reads and the only reason I'm confessing it is so that I don't get my hide chastened, or because I want to get blessed with friends, money, or a fabulous new Cadillac. I'm not confessing my sin to God with the right heart or right motives.

A right motive for me to confess sin to God is because anytime I harbor sin my fellowship with the Lord is broken and I'm breaking God's heart whenever I sin a sin of any kind. My confession of sin should not be to get blessings like a Cadillac or more friends or anything like that because then I'm thinking about me and my flesh (or sin nature) and feeding my sin nature. It's not about me getting blessings it's about getting my fellowship restored between myself and the Lord. I should not be focusing on the things of the world but on Jesus Christ and keeping my fellowship with Jesus. My focus should be that. I'm alone with Jesus with no distractions. When I confess sin (or pray) with the right motives I have such a clean-heart-with-God feeling.

I'd like to list some examples of praying with the right motives and praying with the wrong motives. King David for example was really torn in his heart when he was confronted with his sin by Nathan the prophet. All through Psalm 51 David was focusing on his fellowship with the Lord. In verses 1-10 he asks the Lord so many things like blotting out his transgressions (vs. 1), washing him thoroughly (vs. 2), and creating in him a clean heart (vs. 10). He acknowledges his sin as well by saying, "Against you only have I sinned and done this evil in your sight" (vs. 4). And he recognizes that God desires "truth in the inward parts" (vs. 6).

Another example of a right motive in prayer is like when the tax collector recognized in his heart that he was a sinner and asked God to be merciful to him (Lk. 18:13).

A wrong motive is the opposite of the tax collector - which was the Pharisee (in Luke 18 as well). The Pharisee was self-righteous and thought God owed him something. The Pharisee thanked God that he wasn't that bad of a guy - he justified himself. The truth is we are all sinners that aren't owed anything by God. God is such a rich and merciful God giving us mercy through the cross of Christ which we never deserved. My favorite verse for this is Romans 5:8 which says, "But God demonstrates His own love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

Another wrong motive in prayer is just coming to the Lord in order to escape some kind of trial or problem. I want to remain very prayerful to the Lord not just when times are tough but even when things are going honky-dory. I don't want to come to the Lord like a fire extinguisher - only during the tough times, then when things are going great think "I don't need you now Lord, things are going great." That's treating God like a fair-weather friend.

Galatians 2:20 really focuses on our relationship between us and Jesus saying the life we now live we live by faith in the Son of God who loved us and gave Himself for us.

Continue on to "Right Motives, Part 4".

In Defense of the Gospel, Part 1

2010-12-02T16:53:00.115-06:00

Introduction

In this series I will be answering questions about the gospel.[1]

The key verse for this series is 1 Peter 3:15, which says: "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence".

A Defense of the Glorious Gospel

Question: Does a lost person need to know and believe that Christ appeared to Cephas in order to be saved (1 Cor. 15:5)? I don't think I knew this (the questioner says) at all when I was first saved. Does that mean I did not have a genuine conversion?

Answer: This is probably one of the most common questions that I have heard - and it is usually rooted in one's personal experience (such as a supposed conversion experience). But is personal experience a solid foundation for one's faith? It reminds me of how Zane Hodges promotes his promise-only gospel by saying:

"Years ago, as a student at Dallas Theological Seminary, I washed dishes in the dining hall to pay for my meals. Often after I had finished this chore I hung around and talked theology with another student who swept up the kitchen every night. One night this student made a statement to me that I have never forgotten. He said something like this, 'I know that I trusted Christ for salvation before I realized that Jesus was the Son of God.' I was surprised because I had never heard anyone say this before. But I did not quarrel with that statement then, nor would I quarrel with it now."[2]

One of the problems with this type of thinking is that it changes the question from "What does the Bible say?"[3] to "What kind of experience did I have?" This mindset is more postmodern than it is biblical. Tom Stegall objects to including Christ's resurrection appearances in the gospel because he feels that it "would nullify the salvation of a vast percentage of God's children in the world today".[4] A vast percentage of God's children in the world today also asked Jesus into their hearts, but unfortunately they were wrong.[5] The apostle Paul says: "Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar" (Rom. 3:4). The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, not one's conversion experience - or any experience for that matter. J. Vernon McGee is correct to say that "experience cannot be trusted. Experience must be tested by the Word of God. Unfortunately, many folk today are testing the Word of God by their experience. My friend, if your experience is contrary to the Bible, then it is your experience, not the Word of God, which is wrong."[6]

Now to answer the question in more detail for the sake of further clarification, I would say that if a person knows all about the first three facts of the gospel (i.e. Christ's death, burial, and resurrection), but somehow has absolutely no knowledge that the risen Christ "appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:5) - that would be quite surprising since this gospel truth is emphasized in Scripture (1 Cor. 15:3ff; cf. Ps. 22:22; Isa. 53:10; Matt. 28:10; Mk. 16:7; Lk. 24:34, 48; Jn. 14:19, 16:16, 20:17, 20:19-21:14; Acts 1:3, 1:22, 2:32, 3:15, 4:19-20, 5:32, 10:40-41, 13:31; Eph. 2:20; 2 Tim. 1:10, etc.).[7] The 1 Corinthians 15 passage is almost unanimously recognized as central to the gospel.[8] Notice how the resurrection appearances of Christ are emphasized there by being included in the things "of first importance" (1 Cor. 15:3-5). R. J. Sider affirms: "There is no reason for limiting the traditional element to [1 Corinthians 15] vv. 3-4 as does HERING. Since the series of [hoti] clauses depending on [paredoka] continues through verse 5, vv. 3-5 would seem to be the minimum which can be designated with certainty as part of that which Paul had received. The traditio, then, included a citation of at least some of the eyewitnesses....The verification of Jesus' resurrection by the citation of the carefully preserved tradition of eyewitnesses is, accordingly, a significant part of the Gospel which Paul considers of 'first importance'."[9]

In light of the clear emphasis on Christ's resurrection appearances in Scripture (and quite apart from the question of whether or not they are part of the gospel), I think that even groundless gospel advocates would have to admit that many people at least have a background belief of the resurrection appearances or presuppose them to be true, even if this truth is not at the forefront of their minds when considering the truths of the gospel.[10] So although the question under discussion is interesting, it is clearly based on faulty premises. Besides the fact that it is based on personal experience instead of God's Word, the question also assumes that an individual could be cognizant of the passage in 1 Corinthians 15 (or parallel passage) and yet somehow completely miss one of the very truths that is emphasized!

Nevertheless, let's consider for the sake of the argument that this strange scenario could actually happen. If a person has indeed heard and believed the first three facts of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (i.e. Christ's death, burial, and resurrection) but somehow has "not heard" (Rom. 10:14, NKJV) and has no "knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4) that the risen Christ "appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:5) - and hence does not believe this gospel truth, then that person would be like the Ethiopian eunuch or like Cornelius in the book of Acts - a God fearer who is yet unsaved (the individual has believed part of the gospel but not the gospel). Darrell Bock affirms: "In fact, only to speak of Jesus dying for sin - even to speak of Jesus dying for sin and rising again - is to give only about half the gospel message....Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 summarizes the gospel as the fact that Jesus 'died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas.'"[11] The Bible teaches that a person must believe the gospel to be saved, not merely part of it (cf. Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:17-18, 15:1-5; Eph. 1:13; 2 Thess. 1:8-10, etc.). Based on the New Testament examples of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:25-40), Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48), and Lydia (Acts 16:14-15), I believe that a lost person who is responding to the truth will be given more truth. This individual will not be sent to hell (as groundless gospel advocates suppose). Instead, this person will be sent more light! The principle is this: Light received brings more light, but light rejected brings night.[12] God is not wishing that any should perish but for all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9; cf. Ezk. 18:23, 33:11). Therefore in His "perfect patience" (1 Tim. 1:16; cf. 2 Pet. 3:9) He will move to bring more light to a lost person who has received some gospel truth.

So I would say that your conversion was genuine when you believed the gospel, not merely part of it.

Continue on to "In Defense of the Gospel, Part 2".

ENDNOTES:

[1] Some of the questions in this series will be adaptations and/or compilations of several similar questions.

[2] Zane Hodges, "How To Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message," The Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 13 (Spring 2000): 5.

[3] For example, see John 8:23-24, 28, 58 (cf. Exodus 3:14). Lewis Sperry Chafer affirms: "John 8:24. 'If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.' This is a clear statement that calls for little exposition. It is a case of believing on Christ or dying in the condemnation of sin. It is not alone the one sin of unbelief, but 'your sins' to which Christ refers. There is occasion for some recognition of the fact that Christ spoke these words before His death and, also, that He here requires them to believe that He is the 'I AM' - Jehovah." (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 Vols., 3:196, emphasis his.)

[4] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 566.

[5] Cf. Dennis Rokser, "Seven Reasons NOT To Ask Jesus Into Your Heart".

[6] J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee, 6 Vol., 3:112.

[7] F. F. Bruce affirms: "It is evident from 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 that the primitive kerygma [i.e. preaching] proclaimed not only the events of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, but also (and emphatically) his appearance to eyewitnesses named and unnamed; Luke reproduces this emphasis faithfully (cf. [Lk. 24:34;] Acts 2:32; 5:32; 10:41 [etc.])." (F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 308.) For further discussion see "Getting the Gospel Right," 1-15.

[8] The preeminence of the passage in 1 Corinthians 15 is normally recognized, and even groundless gospel advocate Dennis Rokser has said that "the most definitive passage in the New Testament explaining to us the very content of the Gospel is found in this same book, 1 Corinthians chapter 15." (Rokser, Seven Key Questions about Water Baptism, 5.)

[9] R. J. Sider, "St. Paul's Understanding of the Nature and Significance of the Resurrection in I Corinthians XV 1-19," Novum Testamentum 19 (April 1977): 132-134.

[10] For further discussion see: "Three Views on the Gospel of Grace," endnote 27.

[11] Darrell Bock, Recovering the Real Lost Gospel: Reclaiming the Gospel as Good News, 3. Similarly, Donald Campbell (currently the president emeritus of Dallas Theological Seminary and professor emeritus of Bible Exposition) writes: "The gospel message is simply that 'Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve' (1 Cor. 15:3-5). Paul said this was the gospel he preached to the Corinthians and it was the message by which they received salvation." (Donald Campbell ["DKC"], The Theological Wordbook, 142.)

[12] David Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, 269, cf. Ibid., 272; Gregory Sapaugh, "A RESPONSE TO HODGES: HOW TO LEAD A PERSON TO CHRIST, PARTS 1 AND 2," The Journal of the Grace Evnagelical Society 14 (Autum 2001): 27; Bob Wilkin, "Is Ignorance Eternal Bliss?," The Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 16 (Spring 2003): 12; Wilkin, "Zane Hodges: The New Testament Scholar Who Actually Studied the New Testament," The Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 21 (Autumn 2008): 12-13.

Right Motives, Part 2

2010-11-10T13:34:00.013-06:00

Right Motives In Witnessing

By Peter Hann

Some people may share Christ to their friends, family, or strangers off the street with the motive of only making the world better for themselves. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind seeing the world become virtually sin-free, but that won't happen until Jesus Christ returns to earth to rule and reign.

I mentioned back in the Fishers of Men series that I was mailing tracts and postcards to my former neighbors in suburban Cleveland. A wrong motivation to do that would have been to think: "I only consider the state of Ohio special and I just want Ohio to become a better place and more Christian." The truth is that God wants all 6 billion people around the world to come to know Jesus regardless of their geographical location - no matter if it's Colorado, Japan, New Zealand, etc. He desires all to be saved and none to perish (see 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9).

In witnessing Christ to the lost it doesn't matter where they live, their age, or even how many material possessions they own. The important thing is seeing people the way God sees them - that they're helpless and lost and needing a Savior. It's like seeing someone drowning in a lake and needing a life preserver thrown to them, or seeing someone in a burning building needing to be rescued.

When we see people the way God does we will witness to them not to make the world a better place for ourselves, but because we care about them and about their souls - we don't want them to perish in the Lake of Fire. We care about them on an individual basis. Even though God desires the whole world to be saved He saves souls individually one by one and to the uttermost (Heb. 7:25). So never be afraid to be a Christian firefighter!

Continue on to "Right Motives, Part 3".

The Strange Beliefs of Stegall's System

2010-10-31T20:25:00.153-05:00

Introduction

Last week Bob Wilkin posted his review of Tom Stegall's new book The Gospel of the Christ. While I don't agree with the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) gospel espoused by Wilkin, he does make some good points in his critique of Stegall's position. We must not forget Paul's command to "examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21). In discussing the "MAIN WEAKNESSES OF THE WORK," Wilkin writes: "I believe the underlying weakness that causes all the rest is that Stegall is blinded by tradition...Like a five-point Calvinist, he thinks his tradition is right and he seeks ways to prove his tradition (from tradition, theology, logic, and Scripture), rather than searching the Scriptures and letting them speak for themselves."[1]

After studying Stegall's groundless (no-burial) gospel for several years now, I can't help but agree with Wilkin's assessment! In fact, before I ever read Wilkin's review, I had used the Calvinism comparison myself in describing the main weakness of Stegall's position to others. Stegall's interpretation of the Scriptures is like looking at the Bible through rose colored stained glass windows and seeing everything in red.

While Stegall's position has a veneer[2] of biblical orthodoxy, the following key beliefs appear to be the real basis for his redefinition of the gospel[3]:

12 Key Beliefs of Stegall's System

KEY BELIEF #1: TRIANGLES - In the preface of his book Stegall has a picture of a large upward pointing triangle containing a smaller downward pointing triangle. The smaller triangle has arrows on each side which represent "virtual mirror reflections".[4] These triangles are said to picture the "threefold basis"[5] of the groundless gospel "in an amazing triangular testimony".[6] This geometric symbol appears later in the book as well.[7] Stegall's triangle supposedly depicts the primary basis of the groundless gospel but strangely resembles the Masonic symbol for deity[8] (scroll down to the "Triangulation" picture in the previous link) - a false deity whose secret name is Jahbulon.[9] (Freemasonry is not a Christian organization - it is a pagan religion rooted in Gnosticism.)[10] Amazingly, the pyramid with an upside down triangle is also a trademark of the Klu Klux Klan (notice how the two triangles form three interlocking K's), and is often displayed on the robes of The Exalted Cyclops. The Klu Klux Klan (KKK) is a secret society of white supremacists and is classified as a hate group! More recently, the pyramid shaped symbol has come to be associated with the The Legend of Zelda video game and the Triforce. According to the legend, the Triforce is a triangular sacred relic made up of three smaller triangles known as the Triforce of Wisdom, the Triforce of Power, and the Triforce of Courage. These smaller triangles are said to represent the essences of three golden goddesses. The pyramid shaped symbol pictured in Stegall's book does indeed have "an amazing triangular testimony," but probably not the one Stegall intended. In reality, the Triforce symbol is a testimony to the wisdom of the world (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18-25). It functions as a warning label highlighting the danger of the groundless gospel!

Some might argue that the Triforce symbol can still be used to the glory of God in spite of it's pagan roots and associations (similar to the altar "TO AN UNKNOWN GOD" in Acts 17:22-34). But this thinking misses the point because it does not glorify God to redefine the gospel - and this is exactly what Stegall is trying to do with the "amazing triangular testimony" of his triangle. Notice what he says: "The years ahead will require us to define the sine qua non of the gospel".[11] Apparently Stegall does not realize that God has already defined the gospel for us (see 1 Cor. 15:1ff)!

Stegall may be sincere, but he is sincerely wrong. The Bible says that Christians must "beware" (Col. 2:8, NKJV, Greek blepete) of mixing deceptive philosophies and worldly principles with the teachings of Christ. The apostle Paul warns: "See to it [or beware] that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ" (Col. 2:8; cf. 2 Cor. 11:3-4, 14, NKJV). Greek scholar Marvin Vincent notes that "the elementary principles of the world" (or "rudimentary teachings," Col. 2:8, KJV) includes "pagan symbolic mysteries" - like the Gnostic/Masonic/Klu Klux Klan/Triforce triangle.[12] A. T. Robertson concludes: "The Gnostics were measuring Christ by their philosophy as many men are doing today. They have it backwards."[13]

Not surprisingly, Stegall's triangle creates more problems than it solves.[14] Notice what he says when he introduces it in the preface of his book. He writes: "As a reader, it will also be helpful for you to understand at the outset what the thesis of this book is based upon. The contents of saving faith articulated in this book have not been chosen arbitrarily. In the last few years, as I prayerfully and carefully studied each passage containing the various forms of the word 'gospel,' as well as studying the Johannine writings and many other individual, soteriologically significant passages, the consistency and coherence of God's Word became evident and overwhelming. The Lord has not been vague about what He requires us to believe in order to be born again. Nor has He hidden it from us. This is not a matter of the secret things belonging only to the Lord in contrast to the truths He has revealed (Deut. 29:29). He has provided abundant revelatory testimony to mankind in order to answer the question of what we must believe [that apparently takes years to figure out!]. He has provided a cord of at least three strands in testifying to the contents of saving faith."[15]

This statement by Stegall reveals several things: (1) If indeed the "Lord has not been vague about what He requires us to believe in order to be born again. Nor has He hidden it from us" - then why did it take Stegall "years" of prayerful and careful study before "the consistency and coherence of God's Word became evident"!? Are the contents of saving faith really that hard to understand and that difficult to figure out? This is a glaring problem that only highlights the arcane nature of Stegall's position. No wonder Wilkin incredulously asks: "DOES GOD HIDE THE SAVING MESSAGE IN A SYNTHESIS?"[16] (2) How were the "many other individual, soteriologically significant passages" chosen? Stegall never explains - in fact, he suggests that this is a question which is never specifically answered in the Bible![17] Stegall wants us to believe that his method of selection is not a case of the theological tail wagging the hermeneutical dog, but since he never explains his selection process, how is the reader to know? Wilkin is correct to conclude that such tactics on the part of groundless gospel advocates are nothing more than "arbitrary dogmatism".[18] (3) Notice that there is a hint of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the basic structure of the triangle - for Stegall likens it to a cord of "at least three strands". So are there three strands or more than three strands? What if there are actually four strands and the fourth strand fundamentally alters the interpretation of the first three strands and highlights the error of Stegall's no-burial gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 15:4)? It is telling that Stegall cannot even say with certainty that his geometric symbol is completely accurate.

The simple fact of the matter is that Stegall's triangle is his own invention. It's his unique system of theology. It's the lens through which he understands the Scriptures. It's the window through which he interprets the Bible. Calvinism has five points, the Triforce triangle has three points (in reality, Stegall's entire system has at least 12 key points or beliefs). While the two paradigms are quite different they do share at least one thing in common: both are man-made systems imposed upon the Bible.

KEY BELIEF #2: VIRTUAL MIRROR REFLECTIONS - In explaining his strange triangle Stegall says: "All three lines of evidence function as virtual mirror reflections of one another".[19] Apparently the sine qua non of the gospel is bouncing around inside the triangle somewhere and Stegall has found the secret to harnessing its power.[20] The triangle of power and the virtual mirror reflections go together. They are the two most important keys of the groundless gospel. Why else would Stegall highlight them in the very preface of his book?

Actually, the "virtual mirror reflections" highlight a design flaw in the Triforce triangle. If Stegall were intellectually honest he would have to admit that "The Contents of the Gospel of Christ"[21] (the left side of the triangle) include Christ's burial (1 Cor. 15:4).[22] Thus, this gospel truth should be reflected to the other two sides of the triangle - but it is not. Upon close examination it becomes clear that Stegall is using the "amazing triangular testimony" and "virtual mirror reflections" of his triangle not to define the biblical gospel, but instead to redefine it.

KEY BELIEF #3: UNANSWERED THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS - Under the heading "The Contents of the Saving Gospel,"[23] Stegall attempts to explain why "The [Groundless] Gospel's Content is Not Arbitrary".[24] Stegall once again draws the reader's attention to a picture of his enigmatic triangle as he discusses one of it's constituent parts: "Individual Salvation Passages & The Grounds of Redemption"[25] (which he defines as "Christ's deity, humanity, substitutionary death, and bodily resurrection...in addition to salvation through faith apart from works"[26] - but noticeably excluding Christ's burial and resurrection appearances). Then Stegall makes the most amazing statement. He says, "But this raises an important theological question. Why would God require us to believe only those truths about Christ that provide the grounds of our eternal salvation rather than all other Christological and soteriological truths [such as Christ's burial and resurrection appearances - truths which Stegall argues do not provide the grounds of our eternal salvation]? The reason for this is nowhere stated specifically in Scripture, but the answer appears to be wrapped up in the mediatorial role of Jesus Christ (John 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:3-6)."[27] Notice Stegall just admitted that one of the constituent parts of his triangle is based on a theological question/premise that is nowhere specifically answered/stated in the Bible! Apparently even the triangle of power cannot solve this mystery.

KEY BELIEF #4: SYMMETRICAL LITERARY MARKERS - Stegall believes that the twice repeated phrase "according to the Scriptures" in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 "provides symmetrical literary markers in the passage that distinguish the actual content of the gospel from the evidences for that gospel."[28] Notice that even though Stegall uses the double occurrence of the phrase "according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3, 4) as the key to decode the cipher of his mini-gospel he doesn't even include these two phrases in his gospel![29] In his view they merely mark out the content of the gospel but they are not included in that content themselves. Is it any wonder that a false gospel doesn't include the references to "the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3, 4)? It is truly a tragedy that Stegall exploits the Scriptures in this way. In contrast to Stegall's reductionist reasoning, notice what John Piper has to say about the twice repeated phrase "according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3, 4). Under the heading "6 Aspects of the Gospel Without Which There Is No Gospel," Piper declares: "The gospel was planned by God beforehand (verses 3, 4: 'according to the scriptures')...Now, why is that good news? Because I'm arguing this is an essential part of the gospel. You strip away 'according to Scriptures' - [so as to say] 'there was no plan here'...well what was it if it wasn't a plan? Historical vagaries, just something slipped up here, something went wrong here...that's not gospel."[30]

KEY BELIEF #5: RANDOM NUMERICAL FREQUENCY - In his book Stegall presents another unique method of interpretation in his continued attempt to redefine the gospel. His new method of interpretation borders on numerology by attaching "essential" gospel status to words based on the number of times they are mentioned in the New Testament. Conversely, he attaches no such "essential" gospel status to words that appear less frequently. Under the heading "The Frequency of Christ's Death & Resurrection" Stegall declares: "if Christ's burial and appearances are truly elements of the gospel of our salvation, and therefore essential to saving faith, then there is no adequate explanation to account for the fact that the death and resurrection most frequently appear together in the New Testament without any mention of the burial and appearances."[31] Stegall then goes on to list a random selection of Scriptures referencing Christ's death and resurrection. Stegall's method of interpretation is flawed not because he is noting the number of times certain words occur in the New Testament, but because he is using numerical frequency to supposedly divine the essential and non-essential elements of the gospel without biblical grounds. It is telling that none of the passages Stegall lists even claim to declare the content of Paul's gospel! Furthermore, Stegall's reductionist reasoning contains its own refutation. When consistently applied, such a hermeneutic ultimately leads one to conclude that Christ's resurrection is a non-essential element of saving faith because it is not mentioned as frequently as Christ's death! In other words, based on Stegall's reasoning a misguided interpreter could conclude that the death of Christ is the one key work most frequently emphasized throughout Scripture as the one truth necessary for salvation, not His resurrection. This unbiblical conclusion is more easily arrived at when the passage in 1 Corinthians 15 is selectively omitted, as Stegall has done in his compilation(s) of Scripture.[32]

KEY BELIEF #6: MISTRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE - Stegall believes he has found support for his partial gospel in a somewhat obscure footnote from Daniel Wallace's textbook Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. In the footnote Wallace makes the following notation regarding the characteristics of conjunctions, saying: "Although the two elements [which are connected by a coordinating conjunction] might be equal syntactically, there is often a semantic notion of subordination. For example, on the surface 'I went to the store and I bought bread' involves two coordinate clauses joined by and. But on a 'deep structure' level, it is evident that coordinate ideas are not involved: 'I went to the store in order that I might buy bread.'...Paratactic structure (i.e., when whole clauses are joined) may or may not reflect the true semantic relationship."[33] In short, Wallace is saying that coordinating conjunctions like kai ("and") can often have a notion of subordination on a deep structure level and can thus be translated as "in order that" or "in order to". The first thing to notice is that even if this was the sense of two of the three kai conjunctions in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, it still doesn't remove Christ's burial and appearances from the content of the gospel. But there are several reasons to conclude that Wallace's footnote does not apply to 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 and cannot be used to support Stegall's partial gospel interpretation of the passage. I have already discussed all these reasons at length in my articles "Getting the Gospel Right" and "First Among Equals," but one of these reasons is particularly relevant to the discussion here. Namely, Wallace's footnote cannot be used to support a partial gospel interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 because such a connection leads to a mistranslation of the passage. This is an important consideration and even Wallace advices the exegete to: "Test each option with an interpretive translation in determining the best one."[34] Based on Wallace's footnote (which points out that on a "deep structure" level the coordinating conjunction "and" can often be translated as "in order that" or "in order to") Stegall concludes: "As this relates to 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 we could say that just as someone would not bury a living person, so the Lord's burial (v. 4a) was dependent upon Him dying first (v. 3b). And just as a person could not be seen by others unless he arose from the dead, so the Lord's post-resurrection appearances (v. 5a) were dependent upon Him rising from the dead first (v. 4b). In this respect, the burial and appearances are clearly seen to be semantically subordinate to the two main clauses in the passage. The claim that 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 contains a 'golden chain' of elements that must be of equal theological weight and that must all be elements of the saving gospel, is clearly seen to be unfounded."[35] The problem with Stegall's reasoning is that it is based on an unstated mistranslation of the passage. Stegall implicitly is saying that 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 should read as follows: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, in order that He might be buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, in order that He might appear to Cephas, then to the twelve." However, if such a translation is correct and conveys the intended meaning of the passage, why do no versions of the Bible translate 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 the way Stegall has suggested? (Even Wallace in his NET BIBLE doesn't translate the passage the way Stegall has suggested.) That Stegall must rewrite the Bible to support his groundless gospel is a glaring problem! Such practices are characteristic of cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and their New World Translation but should have no place in the life and ministry of Bible believing Christians![36]

KEY BELIEF #7: LOGICAL FALLACIES - Based on his unique translation of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 Stegall makes the following leap of logic. He writes: "As this relates to 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 we could say that just as someone would not bury a living person, so the Lord's burial (v. 4a) was dependent upon Him dying first (v. 3b). And just as a person could not be seen by others unless he arose from the dead, so the Lord's post-resurrection appearances (v. 5a) were dependent upon Him rising from the dead first (v. 4b). In this respect, the burial and appearances are clearly [?] seen to be semantically subordinate to the two main clauses in the passage. The claim that 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 contains a 'golden chain' of elements that must be of equal theological weight and that must all be elements of the saving gospel, is clearly [?] seen to be unfounded."[37] Besides being confusing there are several obvious flaws in Stegall's statements. As Norman Geisler would say, the logic is self-refuting. Notice that Stegall is taking an equally firm contrary position to the one he caricatures in that he believes certain elements of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 must not be of equal theological weight and must not be elements of the saving gospel. Furthermore, if Stegall's logic and reasoning are consistently applied to the passage, we are left to erroneously conclude that Christ's resurrection is semantically subordinate to His death because we could say that just as someone would not resurrect a living person, so the Lord's resurrection (v. 4b) was dependent upon Him dying first (v. 3b). Based on Stegall logic and reasoning the argument could also be made that Christ's resurrection is also subordinate to His burial because His resurrection was dependent upon Him being buried first. Is Christ's resurrection now not part of the gospel because it is dependent upon His death and burial? Of course not. Although these conclusions are consistent with Stegall's logic they are at odds not only with the content of the gospel but also with the entire context of the passage which stresses the importance of the resurrection.

Another problem with Stegall's reductionist reasoning is that it evidences the logical fallacy of being non sequitur. In other words, Stegall's conclusion does not follow his premise. Stegall's premise is that Christ's burial and appearances should be understood in a subordinate sense; his conclusion is that they are not elements of the gospel. This logical fallacy results from his failure to distinguish the difference between correlation and content. Stegall is confusing a supposed "deep structure level" correlation with the specific content of the gospel. However, the content of the gospel is not changed by some supposed "deep structure level" relationship of the clauses. In other words, even if two of the four coordinate content clauses in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 have a subordinate relationship or correlation to the others, all four clauses still remain content clauses because each is introduced by a hoti ("that") content conjunction. A supposed subordination of Christ's burial and appearances does not equate to their elimination from the gospel. Hence, Stegall's entire argument is rather beside the point and gives no validation to his partial gospel.[38]

KEY BELIEF #8: MISREPRESENTATION OF TRADITION - Stegall alleges that "it has been the standard Free Grace position even long before the advent of the crossless doctrine that the burial and appearances are technically not the gospel but proofs of it."[39] Stegall promotes the same idea later in his book when he contends that "the vast majority of grace-oriented Bible teachers recognize that the contents of the saving gospel include Christ's death and resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 but not the supporting evidences of His burial and post-resurrection appearances".[40] In response to Stegall's claims I would like to direct the reader to an excellent article written last year by George Meisinger, the president of Chafer Theological Seminary - "a non-crossless Free Grace school"[41] (to use Stegall's words). The article is titled "The Gospel Paul Preached: A Church Age Model of Evangelistic Content". It's clear from the article that Meisinger represents and affirms "the standard Free Grace position on the gospel" yet does not agree with Stegall's no-burial interpretation of it.[42]

KEY BELIEF #9: MAN'S OPINIONS - In his book Stegall writes: "Opinions among commentators are divided as to whether the phrase 'according to the Scriptures' [in 1 Corinthians 15:4] qualifies the entire statement, 'and that He rose again the third day'".[43] Wait a minute - "Opinions among commentators"? "BUT WHAT DOES THE SCRIPTURE SAY?" (Gal. 4:30, capitalization added; cf. Rom. 4:3). That's the only question that really matters. Let's back up for a minute and examine why Stegall makes such a comment in the first place. Stegall knows that he has some explaining to do in regards to his removal of "the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4) from the content of the gospel because he has no reason to remove it, at least if he wants to be consistent with his own reductionist reasoning (which views the twice repeated phrase "according to the Scriptures" in 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4 as marking out the real gospel). But Stegall knows that he has to remove the reference to the third day from the content of the gospel because the third day points to the burial of Christ (cf. Matt. 12:40, 27:63-64; Lk. 24:6-7; 1 Cor. 15:4).[44] And Stegall has removed the burial of Christ from the gospel. So Stegall defers to the "opinions among commentators" as his new authority on the issue of the third day.[45] A few pages later in his book Stegall similarly appeals to the supposed conversion experiences "of a vast percentage of God's children in the world today".[46] The problem with Stegall's reductionist reasoning is that he is rejecting Jesus' statement on the matter, when He says, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day" (Lk. 24:46a, italics added; compare to the wording in Lk. 4:4, 8, 17, etc.). By saying, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should...rise again from the dead the third day" Jesus makes it clear that the reference to the third day is indeed "according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:4)! That's what the Scriptures say. Commenting on Luke 24:46, Everett F. Harrison affirms: "Here Jesus is not simply stating the fact of His resurrection on the third day, but rather the Scriptural necessity for its occurrence at that time. The same thing is true of Paul's statement in I Cor. 15:4 to the effect that the resurrection transpired on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures."[47]

KEY BELIEF #10: HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS - Stegall speaks rather approvingly of Zane Hodges' Deserted Island Scenario. He actually describes it as "a helpful illustration that raises some extremely important spiritual questions."[48] Others in the Free Grace movement don't exactly share Stegall's sentiments. For example, Bob Nyberg states: "Some times hypotheticals are not helpful".[49] John Malone declares: "Zane Hodges proposes a theoretical circumstance that is preposterous on its face, and invalid in its details."[50] Fred Lybrand echoes these voices when he calls Hodges' scenario "a mistake".[51] Maybe Stegall's admiration for the "strange scenario"[52] explains why he is now proposing one of his own. Amazingly, Stegall is forcing a portion of God's Word into a strange scenario similar to the one imagined by Zane Hodges! While Hodges uses a few verses from the Gospel of John, Stegall uses the book of Galatians. Let's take a closer look at each scenario.

The Deserted Island Scenario

Hodges states: "Let me begin with a strange scenario. Try to imagine an unsaved person marooned on a tiny, uninhabited island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. He has never heard about Christianity in his life. One day a wave washes a fragment of paper up onto the beach. It is wet but still partly readable. On that paper are the words of John 6:43-47. But the only readable portions are: 'Jesus therefore answered and said to them' (v 43) and 'Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life' (v 47). Now suppose that our unsaved man somehow becomes convinced that this person called Jesus can guarantee his eternal future, since He promises everlasting life. In other words, he believes Jesus' words in John 6:47. Is he saved? I suspect that there are some grace people who would say that this man is not saved because he doesn't know enough. For example, he doesn't know that Jesus died for his sins on the cross and rose again the third day."[53]

The Galatians-Only Scenario

Stegall presents his strange scenario in subtler terms than Hodges and in the form of a rhetorical question. Notice what he says: "Are we honestly to believe that a lost soul could actually read and believe every word of Galatians and yet slip into hell for lack of knowledge about Christ's burial and post-resurrection appearances to Peter and the twelve?!"[54]

Similar to Hodges, Stegall is arguing that the lost soul in now saved as a result of believing the limited information presented to him. But notice that the book of Galatians doesn't even contain all five of Stegall's "essential, defining elements of the Gospel which must be believed for one to receive eternal salvation"[55] - namely, the truth that "Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead"![56] There is only one mention of Christ's resurrection in the book of Galatians (Gal. 1:1, "raised"/egeiro) - as Stegall even indicates.[57] And the word Paul uses for resurrection (egeiro) doesn't mean bodily resurrection. Instead, it's defined to mean simply: "wake, rouse...fig. raise, help to rise".[58] This is why even in English, the verse simply says that "God the Father...raised Him from the dead" (Gal. 1:1). Even though a bodily resurrection is not explicit in the lexical definition of egeiro, the truth of Christ's bodily resurrection is of course implied in the book of Galatians - just like the truths of Christ's burial and resurrection appearances (e.g. Gal. 1:8, 9, 11, 4:13; cf. Acts 13:28-31).[59] No wonder William Lane Craig says, "In being raised from the dead, Christ is raised from the grave. In fact the very verbs egegertai [a form of the word egeiro] and anistanai [another Greek word for "raised" - though not found in Galatians] imply that the grave is left empty. The notion of resurrection is unintelligible with regard to the spirit or soul alone. The very words imply resurrection of the body."[60] In light of these exegetical truths, Stegall must concede that one of his "essential, defining elements of the Gospel"[61] is only implicit in the book of Galatians. Thus, the reductionist reasoning evident in the Galatians-Only Scenario is fallacious, for it is the logical fallacy of special pleading (i.e. a double standard) for Stegall to require Christ's burial and appearances to be explicitly stated in Galatians before he will grant them true gospel status while not applying this same requirement to one of his gospel essentials (Christ's bodily resurrection).[62]

KEY BELIEF #11: FICTIONAL CASE STUDIES - In his book Stegall presents two hypothetical case studies in an attempt to show that the lost don't have to believe in Christ's burial, three day interment, or resurrection appearances to be saved. Ironically, Stegall prefaces his fictional case studies by saying: "when seeking to determine the contents of saving faith, we are not considering what is typical for most Christians, or even what is logical [is Stegall admitting that his groundless gospel is illogical?], but rather what is divinely required for eternal life according to the Word of God."[63] In light of this statement the reader would naturally expect Stegall to explain what the Bible says about what's required for eternal life, but Stegall does just the opposite. Instead of addressing any biblical basis, Stegall goes on to present two fictional case studies of people who supposedly got saved even though they rejected the truths of Christ's burial, three day interment, and resurrection appearances.[64] Amazingly, Stegall then concludes that these facts are not part of the gospel.[65] The real problem with Stegall's fictional case studies is not the case studies themselves, but that Stegall uses them to form soteriological conclusions about the gospel. This mindset is more postmodern than it is biblical. Stegall would do well to follow his own doctrinal statement when it says: "We believe the Bible is the only infallible rule for all faith and practice, and it is therefore solely sufficient (apart from human wisdom and ecclesiastical tradition) to lead an individual to salvation".[66]

KEY BELIEF #12: PERSONAL EXPERIENCES - Stegall contends that a valid reason to exclude the resurrection appearances of Christ from the gospel is because it "would nullify the salvation of a vast percentage of God's children in the world today many of whom cannot even identify the individual in verse 5 with the Aramaic name 'Cephas.'"[67] Stegall seems to be grasping at straws in an attempt to bolster his groundless gospel. His claims are false and exaggerated. No one in the Free Grace gospel debate is saying that a lost person must give the correct identity of "Cephas" (1 Cor. 15:5; cf. Jn. 1:42) in order to be saved. The lost are not required to pass an exam in theology. Instead, they are required to simply believe the gospel. (Chafer quotes Manly as saying: "A man who refuses to believe anything that he does not understand will have a very short creed."[68]) In addition to this, Stegall's argument is based more on experience than on the Bible. Since when is one's soteriology and definition of the gospel based on the supposed conversion experiences of "a vast percentage of God's children in the world today"?![69] A vast percentage of God's children in the world today also asked Jesus into their hearts, but they were wrong.[70] Sadly, Stegall has allowed postmodern thinking to influence his understanding of the gospel. One's theology should never be based on popularity or percentage of opinion but instead should be grounded in God's Word. The words of Dennis Rokser are appropriate: "The accuracy of Scripture is not determined by a popularity contest...Will you base your beliefs and practice on the popular opinion of the human crowd or upon the unfailing and unchanging truths of the Word of God?"[71]

Conclusion

In introducing his mysterious triangle in the preface of his book Stegall reassures his readers: "The Lord has not been vague about what He requires us to believe in order to be born again. Nor has He hidden it from us. This is not a matter of the secret things belonging to the Lord in contrast to the truths He has revealed (Deut. 29:29)."[72] Later in the book Stegall again affirms: "The 'gospel' was never meant to be cryptically concealed from mankind".[73] Yet ironically the groundless gospel of the non-buried and never-seen savior is indeed cryptic and puzzling! So is the complex belief system behind it. Thus, it's no surprise that Wilkin labels it: "Stegall's complicated system".[74] Amazingly, the cryptic and complex nature of Stegall's system is one of the defining characteristics of a mystery religion: "A mystery religion is any religion with an arcanum, or secret wisdom [like Stegall's strange triangle - which is unknown to the average Bible reader]. In a mystery religion, an inner core of beliefs [like the 3 sides of the Triforce triangle or the 12 beliefs of Stegall's system], practices, and the religion's true nature, are revealed only to those who have been inititated into its secrets."[75] Wilkin quips: "Of course, this is why we need pastors like the author."[76] It's no wonder that after studying Stegall's "amazing triangular testimony"[77] and "virtual mirror reflections,"[78] Wilkin concludes: "BUYER BEWARE".[79]

ENDNOTES:

[1] Bob Wilkin, "A REVIEW OF THOMAS STEGALL'S THE GOSPEL OF THE CHRIST," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 2010): 7.

[2] The word veneer is defined as meaning "a superficial or deceptively attractive appearance, display, or effect: FACADE, GLOSS" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary.) Also see: "The Deceiver Savior of the Groundless Gospel".

[3] In his book Stegall gives six explicit reasons to reduce the gospel to his no-burial interpretation of it (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 564-588). Not surprisingly, all six of Stegall's reductionist reasonings can be traced back to one or more of the twelve key beliefs in his system. For instance, in the preface of his book Stegall presents his arbitrary "Threefold Basis for the Contents of Saving Faith" (ibid., 18). Under this heading Stegall immediately says: "As a reader, it will also be helpful for you to understand at the outset what the thesis of this book is based upon." (ibid., 18.) Stegall then presents the reader with the "amazing triangular testimony" (ibid., 19) of his triangle [KEY BELIEF #1] complete with it's "virtual mirror reflections" (ibid., 19) [KEY BELIEF #2] - he even includes a picture of it for added effect!

[4] Tom Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 19.

[5] Ibid., 18.

[6] Ibid., 19.

[7] Ibid., 286.

[8] For more information on the Masonic triangle see: "Shedding light on Sheffield's 'lost' symbols" and "The Tau and the Triple Tau".

[9] See John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Cult Watch, 104, 117; cf. John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Secret Teachings.

[10] Fritz Ridenour writes: "In truth, Freemasonry's bedrock ideas come from ancient Gnostic, esoteric, and pagan sources." (Ridenour, So What's The Difference? [Ventura: Regal Books, 2001], 177; cf. John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Cult Watch; John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Secret Teachings.

[11] Tom Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 42, bold added, italics his.

[12] Marvin Vincent, Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, 4 Vols., 3:486.

[13] A. T. Robertson, Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament, Commentary on Colossians 2:8, http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=col&chapter=002&verse=008.

[14] For further discussion of the groundless gospel's arcane and arbitrary basis see: "Getting the Gospel Right," 2-3.

[15] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 18.

[16] Wilkin, "A REVIEW OF J. B. HIXSON'S GETTING THE GOSPEL WRONG: THE EVANGELICAL CRISIS NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT," The Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 21 (Spring 2008): 20.

[17] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 287; cf. Ibid., 18-19, 286. For further discussion see "The Strange Beliefs of Stegall's System," KEY BELIEF #3: UNANSWERED THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS (above).

[18] Wilkin, "A REVIEW OF J. B. HIXSON'S GETTING THE GOSPEL WRONG," The Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 21 (Spring 2008): 22.

[19] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 19.

[20] The phrase sine qua non is a term meaning "something absolutely indispensable or essential" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Stegall uses the phrase several times in his book (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 42, 96-98, 197-198, 283).

[21] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 19, 286.

[22] Wilkin correctly points out that "the burial of Jesus is part of the Biblical gospel as Paul says it is in 1 Cor 15:4". (Wilkin, "A REVIEW OF J. B. HIXSON'S GETTING THE GOSPEL WRONG," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 21 [Spring 2008]: 18; cf. Wilkin, "A REVIEW OF THOMAS STEGALL'S THE GOSPEL OF THE CHRIST," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 23 [Spring 2010]: 23.) Even Stegall once affirmed Christ's burial in the gospel as evidenced by the wording of his old church doctrinal statement. Under the heading "SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION," it read: "We believe the only correct response to the Gospel of grace which saves a soul from Hell is faith alone in Christ alone, whereby the lost sinner believes that Jesus Christ died for all his sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead (Jn. 1:12; 3:15-18, 5:24, 6:32-40, 8:24; Acts 16:30-31; 1 Cor. 15:1-4, 17)." (Excerpted from the original Word of Grace Bible Church doctrinal statement, circa 2004.) After all the deacons who helped draft the original doctrinal statement either left the church, resigned, or passed away, Stegall proposed to change the wording and redefine the gospel. In his proposal he argued that the original doctrinal statement only "seemed to indicate" that Christ's burial was absolutely essential for someone to believe in order to go to heaven (Stegall, "Proposed Change" church handout, circa 2007)! However, Stegall's claim is seen to be groundless in light of the fact that one of the Word of Grace Bible Church gospel tracts from around the same time assigns the same salvific value to Christ's burial in the gospel (see the "Christ Has Bridged the Gulf" tract, bold his). For further discussion see: "Getting the Gospel Right," 33-34.

[23] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 284.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid., 286.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid. 287, italics his, bold added.

[28] Ibid., 578, italics his.

[29] Ibid., 480, 512, 529, 536, 543, 561, 576, 578, 700, etc.; cf. "Things of First Importance," endnote 4.

[30] John Piper, "How I Distinguish Between the Gospel and False Gospels," (compiled from the sermon outline and the sermon audio [1:13:50-1:13:20], bold and italics his.) Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. affirms: "'Of first importance' (en protois) in the gospel tradition that Paul has received and passes on is 'that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve' (1 Cor. 15:3-5). Death and resurrection, not as isolated events but in their significance and as the fulfillment of Scripture (entailing revelatory, tradition-establishing appearances of the resurrected Christ to the apostles), are central to Paul's message." (Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., "'Life-Giving Spirit': Probing The Center of Paul's Pneumatology," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41 [December 1998]: 574, bold added.)

[31] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 588, bold added.

[32] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 588; cf. Stegall "Proposed Change" church handout (circa 2007). For further discussion see: "Getting the Gospel Right," 15-17.

[33] Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 667, note 2.

[34] Ibid., 668.

[35] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 585, italics his.

[36] For further discussion see: "Getting the Gospel Right," 13-15, and "First Among Equals," endnote 6.

[37] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 585.

[38] For further discussion see: "Getting the Gospel Right," 14-15, and "First Among Equals".

[39] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 556.

[40] Ibid., 580.

[41] Ibid., 577.

[42] Groundless gospel advocates would have us believe that Free Grace theology has always affirmed the non-buried and never-seen deceiver savior of the groundless gospel - but this is hardly the case! In all my study of Free Grace theology I have not found any Free Grace theologians before Dennis Rokser and Tom Stegall who have denied Christ's burial and appearances in the gospel. (Even Earl Radmacher affirms that the content of the gospel includes Christ's burial and appearances as stated in 1 Cor. 15:3-5.) The standard Free Grace position on the gospel has historically included (either explicitly or implicitly) Christ's burial and appearances in the gospel. For example, A. T. Pierson (1837-1911) - one of the consulting editors for the original Scofield Reference Bible of 1909 - writes: "Christianity rests on four facts - the death, burial, rising, and appearing of Christ. This constitutes the essence of the Gospel. Upon a cross and an empty tomb our faith is built." (Arthur T. Pierson, "The Resurrection of Our Lord," The Homiletic Review, Vol. 26 [July 1893]: 72-73, italics his; cf. Donald K. Campbell, The Theological Wordbook [Nashville: Word Publishing, 2000], 142; Everett F. Harrison, "The Son of God Among the Sons of Men, Part 15: Jesus and Mary Magdalene," Bibliotheca Sacra 105 [October 1945]: 438; H. A. Ironside, "The Mormon's Mistake, or What is the Gospel?;" Keith Krell, "The Facts of Faith;" William. R. Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, 5, 6, 19, 20, 21, 24, 397; Miles J. Stanford, "The Dispensational Gospels;" Andy Stanley, "Big Church, Part 4: Big Audience," etc.) For further discussion and specific quotes see: "Three Views on the Gospel of Grace" and "Beware of the Wolves Within Free Grace".

[43] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 560, note 60, italics his.

[44] Also see Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4 Vols., 4:82.

[45] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 560, note 60.

[46] Ibid., 566.

[47] Everett F. Harrison, The Christian Doctrine of Resurrection, unpublished manuscript, 54-55. Commenting on the similarly worded passage in Luke 18:31-34, Merrill C. Tenney affirms: "By the inclusion of the phrase [in Luke 18:31], 'the things that are written,' Jesus connected the events of His passion with the Old Testament." (Merrill C. Tenney, The Reality of the Resurrection, 31.) For further discussion see: "The Deceiver Savior of the Groundless Gospel ".

[48] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 83.

[49] Bob Nyberg, comment on "THE CROSSLESS GOSPEL," http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2385651347&topic=3993 (accessed October 23, 2010).

[50] John Malone, "Zane Hodges goes too far," (accessed October 22, 2010).

[51] Fred Lybrand, "GES Gospel: Lybrand Open Letter," 20.

[52] Zane Hodges, "How to Lead People to Christ: Part 1, The Content of Our Message," The Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 13 (Spring 2000): 4.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 375; cf. Stegall, "THE TRAGEDY OF THE CROSSLESS GOSPEL Pt. 9," The Grace Family Journal (Special Edition 2008): 21.

[55] Stegall, "THE TRAGEDY OF THE CROSSLESS GOSPEL (Pt. 1)," The Grace Family Journal (Spring 2007): 9 (page 4 in the PDF file).

[56] Ibid.

[57] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 76; cf. Stegall, "THE TRAGEDY OF THE CROSSLESS GOSPEL Pt. 3," The Grace Family Journal (Fall 2007): 7 (page 6 in the PDF file).

[58] Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), 214. Liddel and Scott give this definition for egeiro: "to awaken, wake up, rouse, stir: metaph. To rouse, stir up...to raise from the dead" (Liddel and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, 189). W. E. Vine has: "to arouse, to raise (W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr., Ed., Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary, 531). Likewise, Bill Mounce has: "raise up, wake" (William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, 421). Also see Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament, Commentary on Galatians 1:1.

[59] In answering the question "Where is Paul's Gospel to the Galatians?," even Stegall admits that it is in "Acts 13, where Paul's evangelistic message to the churches of Southern Galatia is recorded." (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 340; cf. Stegall, "THE TRAGEDY OF THE CROSSLESS GOSPEL Pt. 9," The Grace Family Journal [Special Edition 2008]: 3.) Later in his book Stegall once again declares that "the content of Paul's gospel has already been recorded for us in Acts 13". (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 347; cf. Stegall, "THE TRAGEDY OF THE CROSSLESS GOSPEL Pt. 9," The Grace Family Journal [Special Edition 2008]: 6.) Another pro-groundless advocate likewise affirms: "In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states plainly that any gospel other than the one he had preached to the Galatians during his visit to them is a false gospel. Scripture provides a record of the precise gospel that Paul preached to the Galatians during his first missionary journey. That record is contained in Acts 13." (J. B. Hixson, Getting the Gospel Wrong, 154-155.)

[60] William Lane Craig, "The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus," italics his, bold added.

[61] Stegall, "THE TRAGEDY OF THE CROSSLESS GOSPEL (Pt. 1)," The Grace Family Journal (Spring 2007): 9 (page 4 in the PDF file).

[62] The Galatians-Only Scenario will be discussed in more detail in a future multi-part blog series titled "The Danger of Deserted Island Scenarios". At this point I simply want to expose it and note that it's one of the key beliefs behind the groundless gospel.

[63] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 561.

[64] Ibid., 561-563.

[65] Ibid., 563.

[66] "THE DOCTRINAL STATEMENT OF THE WORD OF GRACE BIBLE CHURCH, THE HOLY SCRIPTURES," (accessed September 22, 2010), bold added.

[67] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 566.

[68] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4 Vols., 1:75.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Cf. Dennis Rokser, Seven Reasons NOT To Ask Jesus Into Your Heart (Duluth: 3rd Edition, 2005).

[71] Ibid., 36-37 (which are pages 38-39 in the above online booklet/pages 19-20 in the above PDF file).

[72] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 18.

[73] Ibid., 277.

[74] Wilkin, "A REVIEW OF THOMAS STEGALL'S THE GOSPEL OF THE CHRIST," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 2010): 22.

[75] WikiPagan, "Mystery Religion," http://pagan.wikia.com/wiki/Mystery_religion (accessed October 30, 2010).

[76] Wilkin, "A REVIEW OF THOMAS STEGALL'S THE GOSPEL OF THE CHRIST," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 2010): 23.

[77] Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 19.

[78] Ibid.

[79] Wilkin, "A REVIEW OF THOMAS STEGALL'S THE GOSPEL OF THE CHRIST," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 2010): 29; cf. Matthew 16:6. For further discussion see: "Things of First Importance".

Right Motives, Part 1

2010-10-23T19:31:00.027-05:00

Right Motives in Salvation

By Peter Hann

Sometimes when I see unbelieving friends or family going through a tough time, or arguing, or upset, or cursing, I feel like saying to these people something along the lines of: "Well, if you had the Lord Jesus in your life, things wouldn't be so miserable for you." Another thing I've felt like saying is: "You're feeling so miserable. What did you think - things would get better without Jesus in your life?" Or even in society when I see things like crime and all kinds of immorality get worse I feel like saying: "What's wrong with you America?! Did you think that kicking God out of public school and teaching the godless theory of evolution would make kids in school nicer all of a sudden, because they think that their ancestors came from King Kong and looked like something that swings on the trees at the local zoo?"

That is what I feel like saying out of frustration to non-Christians or to our society in general when they throw up their arms and wonder why their lives are in such a mess. Even though it's true as to why things are that way, it wouldn't be the right thing to say to them because the Bible tells us to let our speech be seasoned with grace (Col. 4:6). Furthermore, we shouldn't tell unbelievers that if they had God (Christ) in their lives they wouldn't have such a mess - because even believers have trials. Just like the Bible says: "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22). The ultimate reason we shouldn't tell unbelievers that if they had Christ in their lives there would be no turmoil is because then they would accept Christ as their Savior only so they would have a happy, healthy, or wealthy lifestyle (and like I said in the previous point even believers must go through many tribulations). The one and only reason someone should accept Jesus as their personal Savior should be for a righteousness reason, because they are a lost God's-lawbreaking-sinner in danger of an eternity facing God's judgment in Hell (Jn. 3:36). In other words, they realize they're a sinner who needs to be reconciled to God through Christ and His finished work at Calvary (with His Death, burial, and resurrection, and appearances affirming Jesus is who He is). So ultimately one would be accepting Christ for the right reasons or right motives, and that's why I've titled this story "Right Motives".

When someone accepts Christ for the wrong motives they do it so they have a happy lifestyle or because they think they're getting a bed of roses, and then when they face trials they're shocked. And more than likely they don't care for the things of God because they didn't come to Christ realizing they're an undeserving sinner in need of a Savior. Another example of wrong motives in the salvation experience is when a person accepts Christ to please their spouse, their children, or their friends instead of doing it because they realize they're a sinner in need of a Savior (Lk. 18:13; cf. 1 Tim. 1:15). That's why when I witness to someone I tell them: "Accept Christ because you want to accept Him as your Savior. Don't do it for me or your family to please me or them. Do it for you because deep down in your heart you see yourself as a sinner needing to receive Jesus as your personal Savior." When one does that they do it for the "Right Reasons" or "Right Motives".

Continue on to "Right Motives, Part 2".

Which Jesus?

2010-10-20T23:53:00.043-05:00

It has been noted that "any seasoned missionary will attest to the fact that merely proclaiming the name 'Jesus' and telling lost souls to believe in that name for eternal life will spell disaster on the mission field. This approach will be the surest recipe for syncretism and false professions of faith in Jesus. People must understand the good news of the gospel of Christ in order to truly believe in His name for everlasting life."[1] Relating to this statement, we may ask the following question(s): "Which 'Jesus' must a person believe in for eternal life?"[2] Which "Jesus" is the real One? Which "Jesus" is the right One?

the JEHOVAH'S WITNESS "Jesus," who is just "a god," even Michael the archangel in disguise?

the MORMON "Jesus," who is just a god on par with other faithful Mormons who believe they'll also reach godhood?

the MUSLIM (and so-called Samaritan) "Jesus," who never died on the cross or rose from the dead, and who is just a man, though a great prophet?

the GNOSTIC "Jesus," who didn't really die & rise again, who is also not truly human?

the HINDU "Jesus," who is just one god among many thousands if not millions of gods?

the CROSSLESS GOSPEL "Jesus," who can be virtually anyone or anything as long as the promise of John 6:47 is believed?

the GROUNDLESS GOSPEL "Jesus," who can be a non-buried and never-seen deceiver savior who died for our sins by cosmic accident (as opposed to "according to the Scriptures") and rose from the dead on the 666th day (as opposed to "on the third day according to the Scriptures") - could this be the Christ?[3]

the BIBLICAL Jesus Christ who died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and was buried, and was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve (1 Cor. 15:3-5)![4]

ENDNOTES:

[1] Tom Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, 133, italics added.

[2] Ibid., 85. The following points are adapted from Stegall's chart "Which 'Jesus' must a person believe in for eternal life?" (Ibid., italics his).

[3] This highlights the problem of syncretism. According to the groundless gospel (which promotes the non-buried and never-seen savior), a lost soul would be considered a Christian even if he believes in a Christ who rose from the dead on the 666th day! However, it should be obvious that this is nothing more than a "false Christ " (Matt. 24:24) - for such a one is not the Christ of the Scriptures (cf. Lk. 24:46; 1 Cor. 15:3ff). We must remember that "even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14, cf. 2 Cor. 11:1-4, NKJV).

[4] For further discussion see the article "Getting the Gospel Right".