Repentance in the Gospel of John
October 26th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
One argument against repentance that is invariably found in no-lordship books goes like this: The Gospel of John, perhaps the one book in Scripture whose purpose is most explicitly evangelistic ( John 20:31 ), never once mentions repentance. If repentance were so crucial to the gospel message, don’t you suppose John would have included a call to repent?
Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote, “The Gospel by John, which is written to present Christ as the object of faith unto eternal life, does not once employ the word repentance” (Systematic Theology, 3:376). Chafer suggested that the Fourth Gospel would be “incomplete and misleading if repentance must be accorded a place separate from, and independent of, believing. No thoughtful person would attempt to defend [repentance as a condition of salvation] against such odds, and those who have thus undertaken doubtless have done so without weighing the evidence or considering the untenable position which they assume” (3:376-77).
More recently, Charles Ryrie has written,
It is striking to remember that the Gospel of John, the Gospel of belief, never uses the word repent even once. And yet John surely had many opportunities to use it in the events of our Lord’s life which he recorded. It would have been most appropriate to use repent or repentance in the account of the Lord’s conversation with Nicodemus. But believe is the word used (John 3:12 , 15). So if Nicodemus needed to repent, believe must be a synonym; else how could the Lord have failed to use the word repent when talking with him? To the Samaritan harlot, Christ did not say repent. He told her to ask (John 4:10), and when her testimony and the Lord’s spread to other Samaritans, John recorded not that they repented but that they believed (verses 39 , 41–42). And there are about fifty more occurrences of “believe” or “faith” in the Gospel of John, but not one use of “repent.” The climax is John 20:31 : “These have been written that you may believe … and that believing you may have life in His name” (SGS 97–98).
But no one camps on this point more fiercely than Zane Hodges:
One of the most striking facts about the doctrine of repentance in the Bible is that this doctrine is totally absent from John’s gospel. There is not even so much as one reference to it in John’s twenty-one chapters! Yet one lordship writer states: “No evangelism that omits the message of repentance can properly be called the gospel, for sinners cannot come to Jesus Christ apart from a radical change of heart, mind, and will.”
This is an astounding statement. Since John’s Gospel does omit the message of repentance, are we to conclude that its gospel is not the biblical gospel after all?
The very idea carries its own refutation. The fourth evangelist explicitly claims to be doing evangelism ( John 20:30–31 ). It is not the theology of the gospel of John that is deficient; it is the theology found in lordship salvation. Indeed, the desperate efforts of lordship teachers to read repentance into the fourth gospel show plainly that they have identified their own fundamental weakness. Clearly, the message of John’s gospel is complete and adequate without any reference to repentance whatsoever (AF 146–47).
Hodges suggests that the apostle John was purposely avoiding the subject of repentance (AF 149). He finds in the Gospel of John
not a word—not a syllable—about repentance. And if ever there was a perfect place for the evangelist to inject this theme into his gospel, this is the place.
But his silence is deafening!…
The silence of chapter one persists to the very end of the book. The fourth gospel says nothing at all about repentance, much less does it connect repentance in any way with eternal life.
This fact is the death knell for lordship theology. Only a resolute blindness can resist the obvious conclusion: John did not regard repentance as a condition for eternal life. If he did, he would have said so. After all, that’s what his book is all about: obtaining eternal life (AF 148).
What are we to think of this suggestion? Is the apostle John’s “silence” on repentance really a death knell for the lordship position?
Hardly. H. A. Ironside responded to this issue more than fifty years ago. He wrote:
The arrangement of the four Gospels is in perfect harmony. In the Synoptics [Matthew, Mark, and Luke] the call is to repent. In John the emphasis is laid upon believing. Some have thought that there is inconsistency or contradiction here. But we need to remember that John wrote years after the older Evangelists, and with the definite object in view of showing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, we might have life through His Name. He does not simply travel over ground already well trodden. Rather, he adds to and thus supplements the earlier records, inciting to confidence in the testimony God as given concerning His Son. He does not ignore the ministry of repentance because he stresses the importance of faith. On the contrary, he shows to repentant souls the simplicity of salvation, of receiving eternal life, through a trusting in Him who, as the true light, casts light on every man, thus making manifest humanity’s fallen condition and the need of an entire change of attitude toward self and toward God (Except Ye Repent, 37–38).
Zane Hodges’ assertion that “the fourth gospel says nothing at all about repentance” (AF 148) is demonstrably false. It is true that John does not use the word repentance, but as we have observed elsewhere, our Lord also did not use the word grace. One suspects no-lordship theologians would recoil from any suggestion that the doctrine of grace was missing from Jesus’ teaching.
Repentance is woven into the very fabric of the Gospel of John, though the word itself is never employed. In the account of Nicodemus, for example, repentance was clearly suggested in Jesus’ command to be “born again” ( John 3:3 , 5 , 7 ). Repentance was the point of the Old Testament illustration our Lord gave Nicodemus (vv. 14–15 ). In John 4 , the woman at the well did repent, as we see from her actions in verses 28–29.
Isn’t repentance included by implication in the following Johannine descriptions of saving faith?
John 3:19–21: And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.
John 10:26–28: But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them (emphasis added).
John 12:24–26: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life loses it; and he who hates his life in this world shall keep it to life eternal. If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there shall My servant also be; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him.
To say that John called for a faith that excluded repentance is to grossly misconstrue the apostle’s concept of what it means to be a believer. Although John never uses repent as a verb, the verbs he does employ are even stronger. He teaches that all true believers love the light ( 3:19 ), come to the light ( 3:20–21 ), obey the Son ( 3:36 ), practice the truth ( 3:21 ), worship in spirit and truth ( 4:23–24 ), honor God ( 5:22–24 ), do good deeds ( 5:29 ), eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood ( 6:48–66 ), love God ( 8:42 , cf. 1 John 2:15 ), follow Jesus ( 10:26–28 ), and keep Jesus’ commandments ( 14:15 ). Those ideas hardly concur with no-lordship salvation! All of them presuppose repentance, commitment, and a desire to obey.
As those terms suggest, the apostle was careful to describe conversion as a complete turnabout. To John, becoming a believer meant resurrection from death to life, a coming out of darkness and into light, abandoning lies for the truth, exchanging hatred for love, and forsaking the world for God. What are those but images of radical conversion?
Loving God is the expression John uses most frequently to describe the believer’s demeanor. How can sinners begin to love God apart from genuine repentance? What does love imply, anyway?
Finally, remember that it is the Gospel of John that outlines the Holy Spirit’s ministry of conviction toward the unbelieving world (John 16:8–11). Of what does the Holy Spirit convict unbelievers? Of “sin, righteousness, and judgment” (John 16:8). Wouldn’t it seem that the Holy Spirit’s ministry of convicting people of sin and its consequences has the specific purpose of laying the groundwork for repentance?
Repentance underlies all John’s writings. It is understood, not necessarily explicit. His readers were so familiar with the apostolic message that he didn’t need to dwell on the issue of repentance. John was emphasizing different facets of the gospel message than those highlighted by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But he most assuredly was not writing to contradict them! His aim certainly was not to devise a no-lordship doctrine of salvation.
In fact, John’s purpose was exactly the opposite. He was showing that Jesus is God (e.g., 1:1–18 ; 5:18 ; 12:37–41 ). John’s readers clearly understood the implication of that: If Jesus is God and we must receive Him as God ( John 1:12 ), our first duty in coming to Him is to repent (cf. Luke 5:8 ).
H.A. Ironside says “But we need to remember that John wrote years after the older Evangelists, and with the definite object in view of showing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, we might have life through His Name. He does not simply travel over ground already well trodden. Rather, he adds to and thus supplements the earlier records, inciting to confidence in the testimony God as given concerning His Son.”
Didn’t the Free Grace camp recently conclude that John was written after the Synoptics?
Very well done. Excellent study. Encouraged in His truth.
The Apostle John does use the word repent [metanoeo] in his epistle, The Revelation.
“not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Pet. 3:9
“Then has God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” Acts 11:18
I should have said that the Free Grace position has recently concluded that John was written BEFORE the synoptics. Sorry for the typo.
I would hate to be in a position which holds that any one of the clear presentations of eternal life offered on the basis of faith alone in Christ alone, in John’s Gospel is really incomplete, easily misunderstood, or inadequate to lead even a child to faith in Christ.
I believe that the Bible is the powerful, inspired and inerrant Word of God, and that a basic, childlike understanding of the truth in John 3:16 is able to grant even a child eternal life, and 100% assurance of that fact. The full assurance would be based upon Christ’s promise, and not upon any works they will have to add to that faith . . . including repentance of any kind.
The Word of God, John 3:16 included, is powerful. It does not need the help of Systematic Theology, Philosophy, Church Fathers, Confessions or light from Dr. Hodges, Calvin or any other man to grant eternal life to someone as naive and unsophisticated as a child.
John, I think I can safely say that we in the FG movement appreciate your stance on the Bible such as literal hermeneutic, sound theology, and Bible Exposition through many years, and we applaud that track record. However, it appears of late, you are getting so entrenched in the Reformed/Lordship camp you are leading people towards eisegesis (i.e. reading theology into the text, quoting reformed works), rather encouraging exegesis and inductive study of the Scriptures.
On the other hand, in the FG movement, we encourage careful exegetical study (as L.S. Chafer encouraged), and direct inductive study to check out everything we say. Like the Bereans, we all need to confidently use that practice (carefully and prayerfully) to constantly make corrections to what we hear, no matter who we hear it from. . . even Hodges if necessary. Dr. Hodges would be GREATLY offended if ANYBODY took everything he said as Gospel truth without checking it out on our own. I am not just saying this. . . he and Dr. Wilkin is passionate about that. We don’t just quote. . . we are responsible to check out everything. I don’t hear those words from Reformed/Calvinistic speakers very often! Basically the Westminster Confession of Faith is as authoritative as the Scriptures when I read men like James White. They quote it side by side with Scripture. If you disagree with WCF, then you are wrong, no questions asked.
We will all stand before God some day, and be judged for what we believe, apply and teach. I would rather disagree with what the popular, Biblically illiterate Evangelical community teaches about repentance, and agree with what I find to be true from Spirit led, prayerful, careful, exegetical, inductive study of the Word of God. I am sure you would do the same.
Donald Reiher
Host of GES Webboard
The stunning violence done to the harmony of Scripture by FG when uses this argument is remarkable. Also, the full throated reliance on the “argument from silence” (surely the weakest of interpretive moves) renders this whole line a tattered fabric. MacArthur’s refutation of this argument is complete.
So, from the FG position we have to believe that John did not agree with Jesus regarding evangelization?
“Luk 24:47 (ESV) and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”
August:
In the October 24th thread I provided for you extended answers to numerous questions. I left off with a single question for you on the same topic. You have not addressed it.
Let me repost it here in case you missed that question. Then you can go back to the thread and provide an answer. My question was:
“August- How do you define “believe” as it appears in Romans 10:9? Does your understanding of “believe” require a lost man come to Christ with an upfront commitment to live “in obedience to Him” in order to be born again?”
I will check back later to read your reply.
Thanks,
LM
Lou,
I did not see your last reply there, sorry. Sometimes my browser does not show all the comments if there are many responses. I will check back there.
Thanks
Lou,
As Jesus states in John 3:3 one must be ‘born again’ before he can believe. Also see Eph. 2:4-5.
This regeneration comes with POWER. It radically changes a person…….
Brothers,
I have been wondering for a few years about the grenades flying between the Lordship and Non-Lordship camp. I do not concur that a true Christian will not produce fruit, but nor do I see Scripture telling a man that as he is being drawn to the Lord via the Spirit of God through the Scriptures, that he is able to yield all of his future wants, wishes, etc to Christ in some sort of deep understanding of Gospel sacrifice laid on the altar, so to speak. The man is simply recognizing his vile sinfulness and crying out for mercy to Christ. Implicit in that is a willingness to surrender to the rule ( Lordship) of Christ over his life.
While the extremes may indeed be either abusing “grace” and thus making salvation cheap by saying that a man can be redeemed and never display any works that prove his redemption ( read James to disporve this) OR adding to grace and making repentance a “works” based redemption, by yielding every thoguth and deed and desire that he will ever have BEFORE he is regenerated ( which is impossible) – - – it seems to me that in essence all that is important that we understand that those who are truly born again ( not by a decision) but truly by the sovereign drawing of the Holy Spirit will ( not maybe) indeed bear fruit over the years ahead in their Christian life and primarily that this fruit is measured as that of true holiness and godliness
(Christlikeness).
So, while I believe that maybe the FG movement is errant on some serious points, so are the extremes of the Lordship camp. I was at the Shep Conf in 2003(?) when Dr. Mac Arther taught on the Defense of the Gospel (in that it was “Hard to Believe”) from cheap grace and it did seem that he over pushed the point a little by saying that a man must surrender everything and be ready to die, etc, etc in order to be born again. I agree that this is the reaonsable conclusion of those who have indeed been truly saved and thus as maturity comes, the fullness of surrender comes ever increasing, because of grace, but I do remember being a little uncomfortable by his implying that the man coming to Christ must knowingly surrender every desire, will, wish, etc, etc for all of the future, yet unknown. How can a man surrender that which he does not yet even understand or know?? THis is impossible and more that this, it is impossible because only after we are given new life in Christ with a new nature, can we properly see the old man of sin and the need to ever mortify our sin and exalt the Glory and Beauty of Christ alone.
I wonder if the Lordship view is right in that a man cannot come to Christ and say “I want to be redeemed” ( which is really a work of the Spirit, not that man) but “I will not yield to Christ as the Master over my life” with all that the sinner knows to yield at that time. In time, of course, the yielding to Christ will mature all the more and the new believer in a few years will hunger and thirst even more to follow Christ. In this I believe the Lordship view is right, but also the FG idea is right in that a man can only surrender to Christ what he knows to surrender at the time the HS is dealing with his spiritual mind and heart and that this “surrender” comes simply by truly believing in Christ as our only hope for Eternal Life. That Grace is indeed free to us as sinners, because of Christ and that those who truly “believe” in a sense of genuine submission ( not some extreme Lordship idea here) to Christ as their Saviour are indeed born-again.
Then comes the ever growing evidence of conversion…
Fruit is the reasonable and necessary outcome of regeneartion, but that fruit will not be always perfectly matured in each believer. A Christian with absolutely no fruit over years and years may indeed need to worry whether he is truly born again, but fruit is a result of redemption, not a cause of it.
Why the war? It seems to me that some of the truth is true in both “camps” and that while some extremes are errant, the simple fact is that salvation, if real, produces fruit – the amount may vary as we mature in Christ.
As a Southern Baptist, we have too many on our rolls that say they are born again, but there is no way that they who “walked and isle and prayed a prayer” can really be born again when they do not love the commands, nor the saints ( except superficially) nor do they really have a clear and biblical confession of Christ. They claim to be wheat, but are tares. (They will not submit to Scripture, not to spiritual leadership, not joyfully attend worship and Bible Study, not for years. ) They are lost, not because they did not “yield to Christ as Lord” , but simply because the evidence clearly does not align with the reasonable evidence of being born from above. There is no holiness nor any real hunger. No true life.
Again, if Dr. Mac Arthur and Dr. Ryrie were to sit down without all the flambouyant press and image around them, I wonder, if pride were laid aside, if they would agree that a truly born again man will bear fruit and this is not because Christ was “made” Lord at their conversion, but because the Holy Spirit has regenerated the man and cause him to desire to grow up in Christ. Is it possible that that argument in the main, is moot. That it is the FG extremes and the Lordship extremes that are fanning an unnecessary fire.
Is there really a disagreement in major substance between Ryrie and MacArthur? I contend not.
This is something I have wanted to ask for a long time. Now it is off my chest. Without micropicking my argument, don’t you see the “common” ground between MacArthur and Ryrie? I wonder if we are arguing ( not the extremes) the basics too excessively and thus confusing the matter for many many people in the local church?
Gary Fore, Wray, CO
“Repentance is woven into the very fabric of the gospel of John”.
That’s an excellent quote.
Also: “Repentance underlies all John’s writings”.
“And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not. … And I will kill her children with death: And all the churches shall know that I am He who judges the wills and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.” Rev. 2:21,23
I may not be a scholar and I have never gone to seminary, but the one thing I do know through reading scripture under the Holy Spirit’s tutelage is that there are 3 distict doctrines woven into the fabric of scripture that are undeniable in the life of the believer and that is…
1. The doctrine of Justification by faith alone in Christ alone. The first step in the life in the believer where he is postioned in Christ and has been fully declared righteous in God’s eyes because of Christ. This pays our sin debt owed to God. We are adopted as childen.
2. The doctrine of sanctification in which God now assumes responsiblity to transform us into the likeness of Christ. This is a continual process and does not end until we are fully glorified which brings us to the third doctrine….
3. The doctrine of glorification in which we will finally be brought into perfection in the presence of Christ Jesus and once again God assumes responsiblity for this.
All of this is executed by God’s grace. I think so much of the confusion is the Catholic Church’s influence upon the evangelical church. After all some of our evangelical leaders have formed an alliance with the Catholic Church and have agreed that Catholics are our brothers and sisters in Christ and the Catholic Church clearly teaches a works based religion in which the Bible clearly refutes. It’s unfortunate that the lines have been blurred which I believe has led to all the confusion. Their are even some evangelical ministries that have allowed Catholics to be in leadership and even discipleship postions. No wonder we have so many problems. I’m just so greatful that I have the greatest teacher inside of me in which I can call upon at any time who will always lead me into the truth.
The ECT (Evangelical and Catholics coming together) document never lucidly lined out the doctrinal differences between evangelical or protestants and catholics namely the doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. That is the only reason why they were able to come together because they sacrificed the truth for peace. The Catholic Church, like all other religions, adds works to salvation, however Christianity or the gospel is distinct in that it does not add works to salvation. That’s what sets it apart from the rest of the world. Paul said he came to teach a gospel not from this world, neither was it taught to him by a man but was a revelation from Jesus Christ Himself. All other religions deify man or at least gives him some credit, the gospel on the other hand abases man totally and gives God all the glory for He said no flesh shall glory in My presence and put no confidence in the flesh. The power to be transformed comes from God, not man, for man does not have the power to change in and of himself. Paul was careful to give all the credits to God, never assuming it himself.
Donald – I would encourage you to consider soberly the words of Jesus who said, ‘Many will say to Me, “lord, Lord” and I will say, depart from Me you who practice lawlessness.’ [Matt. 7:21-23]
Does it matter to you if a person finds assurance in the FG system and winds up in hell because of shallow gospel preaching?
I personally did not come to a lordship postion thru John MacArthur or reading the Westiminster Confession of faith but through reading the Bible – in particular reading the gospels. I had no one to tell me that I really didn’t need to listen to the hard sayings of Jesus.
While reading the Bible I was convicted that I was a gospel hypocrite because I professed to believe in Jesus [had prayed the prayer] but lived a life of wanton sin for many years as a teen. I was pierced to the heart by the Scriptures and knew that some day – Jesus would say to me, ‘Depart from me you who practice lawlessness’- if I stayed on the broad road I was on.
Why did I come to that conclusion?
Did I decide to start working for my salvation?
Did I feel that the cross was insufficient for my atonement?
No – I thought that the evidence of my being born again was completely absent
Through reading the Bible I found certain conclusions:
I found that to confess Jesus as Lord means something [Rom. 10:9 - Luke 6:46]
I found that a tree can be known by its fruit [Matt. 7:15-20]
I found that many are on the broad road to destruction and that you can’t enter the narrow gate while staying on the broad road that leads to destruction
I found that the Prodigal Son had to get up and leave the pigs
I found that the Bible says things like, ‘By this we know that we have come to know Him if we keep His commandments.’ [I John 2:3]
Jesus said, ‘If you love Me you will keep My commandments.’ [John 14:15]
So – don’t pretend that the FG position takes the biblical high ground
I am appalled at some of the positions zealously supported by FGers on this blog
Acts 11:18 – not referring to eternal life?
That is just horrendous theology
You don’t get there [the FG position]from reading the Bible – you get there from being indoctrinated with a system.
I think this comment from J.I. Packer summarizes what is at stake: ‘The pastoral effect of this teaching [FG]can only be to produce what the Puritans called, ‘Gospel Hypocrites’ – persons who have been told that they are Christians, eternally secure, because they believe Christ died for them, when their hearts are unchanged and they have no personal commitment to Christ at all. I know this, for I was just such a Gospel hypocrite for two years before God mercifully made me aware of my unconverted state. If I seem harsh in my critique of Hodges’ redefinition of faith as barren intellectual formalism, you must remember that once I almost lost my soul through assuming what Hodges teaches, and a burned child always thereafter dreads the fire.’ [Tabletalk, May 1991]
That would be pretty much my own testimony as well.
I fully believe that we are saved by nothing but the sheer grace of God alone. I believe that my sins are paid in full on Calvary and that thru faith in Jesus as my Lord and Savior I enter into the benefits purchased for me [forgiveness and new life]. I believe He took My sins with Him to the cross and on the 3rd day rose from the dead. I can add nothing to the work of Christ nor do I desire to.
I also believe that in the Scriptures we are clearly told how to know if we have such saving faith.
Brother Gary:
You wrote, “I was at the Shep Conf in 2003(?) when Dr. Mac Arther taught on the Defense of the Gospel (in that it was “Hard to Believe”) from cheap grace and it did seem that he over pushed the point a little by saying that a man must surrender everything and be ready to die, etc, etc in order to be born again. I agree that this is the reaonsable conclusion of those who have indeed been truly saved and thus as maturity comes, the fullness of surrender comes ever increasing, because of grace, but I do remember being a little uncomfortable by his implying that the man coming to Christ must knowingly surrender every desire, will, wish, etc, etc for all of the future, yet unknown. How can a man surrender that which he does not yet even understand or know?”
You have succintly stated what I have repeatedly contended is the error with Dr. MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation. You heard it from him personally, I have it cited in my book.
My concern has been with the extremes. Demanding upfront commitments and surrender for salvation is the extreme! I have often said I competely agree that a genuinely born again child of God should bear evidence to some degree.
I will, however, continue to say any message that includes demands such as a willingness to die for Jesus to be born again is NOT the gospel of Jesus Christ!
LM
http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Dr. MacArthur:
After citing a series of verse from John’s gospel you wrote, “All of them presuppose repentance, commitment, and a desire to obey.” In the series of passages you included, “obey the Son (3:36)…do good deeds (5:29)… keep Jesus’ commandments (14:15).”
In what are for the most part biblically sound articles on repentance (October 25 & 26) you managed to weave an apologetic for the Lordship gospel of surrender and commitment into them.
In the previous article you wove “surrender” into the definition of repentance. You wrote, “Repentance is a response of the total person; therefore some speak of it as total surrender.” Then the quote by Kittel is as extreme and exegetically unsound as I have read in recent years.
Today, you weave “obey” into the definition of believe. In John 3:36 the active word is believe. If a man will believe on the Son (of God), he will have eternal life. John MacArthur cites this verse in a footnote on p. 39 of The Gospel According to Jesus. The meaning of the verse, however, is distorted to favor the Lordship Salvation view. He cites the verse as follows: “He who does not obey the Son shall not see life. . . .” Obey is a legitimate translation of believe, but your rendering from John 3:36 is incorrect. I have more on this in my book.
You go beyond the biblical boundaries when you define the doctrine of repentance in regard to the reception of salvation.
A gospel message of commitment, surrender, and obedience in exchange for salvation clouds, confuses and frustrates the biblical plan of salvation.
LM
What would you say to Jesus if he asks you to take up your cross daily?
No?
We are called to do many things that are impossible:
1) Be holy as I (God) am holy
]
2) Be like Christ in all things
3) To not sin
[yes, I know its sort of redundant
I don’t think Jesus expected us to be able to keep those commands.
I think salvation is the same way there are many changes one of which is repentance and surrender. Jesus tells us what kind of repentance and surrender he wants 100%, we should just be gracious He forgives us when we fail in those things.
Just like there will be times when you will be like Christ and there will also be times you surrender and repent, but realistically this doesn’t happen, and the LS proponents nor the Bible would ever say that their surrender or repentance is perfect always once they become saved.
However salvation/faith is the vehicle through which we are able to repent and surrender and it is never divorced from that. You should at salvation be moving in the directions of:
1) Holiness
2) Christ likeness
3) Sinlessness
4) Repentance
5) Surrender
Here’s a scenario:
100 brand new 1 sec Christians (real ones), being held at gunpoint and told if you don’t believe in Christ to just quietly walk out the door.
Now hopefully God will give some the grace to stand up and die for their faith, but if say 50 walked out I don’t think the LS people would be like “Oh my, you aren’t really saved,” but it seems like from all the hoopla the FG have been saying, the ones who went out didn’t sin, b/c such surrender is not required of a new believer and isn’t a concomitant with their recently received salvation.
“We are called to do many things that are impossible”
Amen.
To believe the gospel is impossible. To ask God to forgive me is impossible. To feel sorry for my sins is impossible.
To do all these things with purity and genuine sincereity is absolutely impossible.
But, by His grace…
Here’s a verse which, for me, speaks volumes:
“And a tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God be merciful to me a sinner!’” Luke 18:13
This man was justified.
What an intense and genuine act of repentance and faith, which came from a heart of godly sorrow! It’s the Lord’s grace alone which does this to a callous and blind heart.
He granted it to my heart, and I’ll never know why.
Amen to the remarks of Donald Reiher.
I appreciate his respect for Dr. MacArthur.:
John, I think I can safely say that we in the FG movement appreciate your stance on the Bible such as literal hermeneutic, sound theology, and Bible Exposition through many years, and we applaud that track record.
His view of Scripture and FG theology:
On the other hand, in the FG movement, we encourage careful exegetical study (as L.S. Chafer encouraged), and direct inductive study to check out everything we say. Like the Bereans, we all need to confidently use that practice (carefully and prayerfully) to constantly make corrections to what we hear, no matter who we hear it from. . . even Hodges if necessary. Dr. Hodges would be GREATLY offended if ANYBODY took everything he said as Gospel truth without checking it out on our own. I am not just saying this. . . he and Dr. Wilkin is passionate about that.
And his response to the topic of the post:
I believe that the Bible is the powerful, inspired and inerrant Word of God, and that a basic, childlike understanding of the truth in John 3:16 is able to grant even a child eternal life, and 100% assurance of that fact. The full assurance would be based upon Christ’s promise, and not upon any works they will have to add to that faith . . . including repentance of any kind.
My own observation is that clearly, John’s Gospel wasn’t written to a tightly restricted group as Harry Ironside believed:
29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Who is the you? Well… the parameters which John eloquently set for his Gospel are crystal clear to those not offended by the sheer generosity of Christ’s offer of eternal life.
Blessings~
Jodie
Don:
The passage where the publican cries out, “God be merciful to me a sinner”: always moves me in a special way.
This is, however, another example where you do not find any suggestion of commitment or surrender being offered to receive mercy/forgiveness of sin.
LM
LM:
Luke 18 Beautiful indeed, but I bet you that anything if Jesus called on that publican to surrender his life for him, he would’ve jumped up and done it!
Ironically the very next story in that chapter is “the rich young ruler.” He would’ve loved to hop on the FG wagon, unfortunately I believe this is one of the stories where Christ clearly asks a sinner for surrender and doesn’t praise his intellectual assent of him. If you see it the other way, Jesus points out that his flaw is in his surrender to God, not his lack of faith ie Jesus didn’t say “You don’t believe quite right” he said drop everything and then you will have treasure in … Heaven! And I know there’s only way to go from no treasure in heaven, to treasure in heaven = salvation
Lou,
One quick thought on your mention of apeitheo in John 3:36, the primary meaning of the word is “to disobey.”
Both here and in your book, you make it sound as though “to disobey” is a secondary meaning. But that is not the case… see Kittel, TDNT, IV:10.
Even when used as a synonym for unbelief, it means refusal to obey the command to believe. Again the root meaning of the word is disobedience, with the context helping to determine the nature of that disobedience.
Anyway, just wanted to clarify.
Thanks,
NB
John:
Commitment and surrender does not appear in the publican’s prayer because that is not the way to be saved/justified. An upfront promise to become or do anything in exchange for salvation is a works based gospel.
Secondly, if the Lord did ask the publican to surrender his life, after he was saved, which is where surrender to the Lord belongs, what guarantee do we have he would have done so? There are plenty of examples in our churches today of genuinely born again Christians who have not surrendered their lives in “whole hearted” commitment to the Lord.
As for the rich young ruler- Jesus did not ask for surrender or commitment. If you read the passage without filtering it through Dr. MacArthur’s lordship theology you find the Lord was using the Law to point out to the young man that he fell short of salvation because of the sin of covetousness (Exodus 20:17).
The young man’s problem was not his riches, it was sin- coveting his riches above God. Jesus showed him that he had not and could never live up to the standards of the Law. Jesus used the Law to show him that his sin had condemned him already.
When the rich young ruler approached Christ, he asked, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” That “good thing” is works.
Dr. MacArthur wrote, “Our Lord gave this young man a test. He had to choose between his possessions and Jesus Christ. He failed the test. No matter what he believed, since he was unwilling to forsake all, he could not be a disciple of Christ. Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 78.)
From his book Hard to Believe Dr. MacArthur wrote, “And he needed to be willing to submit to the Lord Jesus, even if it meant he had to give up all his earthly possessions. He might not ask, but the requirement for eternal life is the willingness to give it all up if he does.” (p. 9.)
Surrendering possessions, forsaking everything is, according to Dr. MacArthur, the requirement for salvation. That is a works based message!
Do you believe that if the young man had surrendered his riches to the poor on the spot, or promised to do so later, that this would have guaranteed for him eternal life?
One must be careful not to force into, or squeeze out of, the Bible what he desires it to say.
LM
Lou,
You’re a gracious brother. And I truly listen to your thoughts on Scripture.
But I do disagree with you on repentance. Jesus proclaimed repentance very clearly. He preached the gospel of the kingdom of God, repent and believe. Mark 1
Peter said repent and believe.
This young ruler was being told to repent by our Lord. You see it different, and that’s the way it has to be.
I see the tax-collector repenting as well.
Here’s the key for me.
God seeks and then saves a lost sinner by quickening this same rebellious hell deserving dead soul, so that he becomes a child of light, and one that is able to fall at Jesus feet, as Peter did.
One who turns from his old ways to follow and serve the Lord of all creation.
All of this, everything this newly created soul does– repent, believe, turn, cry out for mercy, surrender, and so on,– is 100% purely from the grace of God. God does it all.
The lost soul has nothing to do with it. It’s pure mercy. And what great mercy it is!
Now, is it really me who crys out to God, and repents, and believes. Absolutely.
Paul says it this way, “But when it pleased God, who seperated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace,
To reveal His Son in me” Gal 1:15-16
And, “But by the grace of God I am what I am: and His grace which was upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I but the grace of God which was with me.” 1 Cor. 15:10
I believe Paul is no more special to the Lord than all His children. And that God saves us all in the same way. One faith, one salvation, for Jews and Greeks.
Grace, grace, God’s grace. I was blind, but now I see. Grace has brought me this far, and it will take me home.
For me, there is a mystery to our salvation. The gospel is beautiful in its simplicity, and yet it is so deep, because it’s the good news that a holy, holy Lord, who owes us nothing, would come and die on a Cross for our blaspemous conduct.
Peace and joy. All for Jesus.
Don:
Please understand that I do not pull repentance out of the gospel message. I do not, however, allow for the results of repentance to become the requirements for salvation.
Sure the rich young ruler had to repent. No one is born again without biblically repenting. But the act of or promise to give away wealth does not result in eternal life.
Do you find yourself in agreement with the quotes above I provided from Dr. MacArthur on this matter?
LM
I’ll have to consider this and ponder it.
I do believe we both agree that God’s salvation is 100% purely from the Lord. He died for us, and we are forgiven in Him, and by His grace alone.
Our godly sorrow, and asking for mercy out of a good heart is all God.
We turn from our sinful lives, and to a holy God is all God.
He saves. We have nothing to boast in.
Whether I say we repent and believe, I believe repentance is granted by His grace as well.
No boasting whatsoever.
I will ponder all this a little more.
Thanks for gracious, and yet firm in your beliefs, attitude.
Galatians 6:14
I like what Jerry Morningstar said here: “You don’t get there [the FG position]from reading the Bible – you get there from being indoctrinated with a system.”
Amen! the same system that indoctrinates its adherents into believing that any who disagree with them do so because they are ashamed of grace.
One of the neglected aspects of repentance is realizing what we can’t do anything to save ourselves. The vast majority of the human race think their getting to heaven on their own merit and good works. Now I do respect Dr. MacArthur for his stands on biblical inerrancy and expository preaching, but there is always the danger of being reactionary. To combat antinomianism we go off into legalism, and put believers back under the law. MacArthur reminds me some what of Charles G. Finney. Finney over reacted to hyper-Calvinism by focusing on free will and self-effort. Finney thought the heirs of the Westminster Confession used original sin and imputed righteousness, as excuses for lack of holy living. Finney put such emphasis on self-effort and holiness standards that it damages sensitives souls, spiritually and mentally. If a person has ever known the real, horror of legalism and ascetism, you realize how free grace really is. It’s very easy for LS proponents to fall into perfectionism, and trying to be sanctified by the law, just like their nemesis,ol’ fire and brimstone, Charles Grandison Finney.
Don:
When the rich young ruler approached Christ, he asked, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” That “good thing” is works.
Here are those quotes from Dr. MacArthur on the episode with the rich young ruler.
Dr. MacArthur wrote, “Our Lord gave this young man a test. He had to choose between his possessions and Jesus Christ. He failed the test. No matter what he believed, since he was unwilling to forsake all, he could not be a disciple of Christ. Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 78.)
From his book Hard to Believe Dr. MacArthur wrote, “And he needed to be willing to submit to the Lord Jesus, even if it meant he had to give up all his earthly possessions. He might not ask, but the requirement for eternal life is the willingness to give it all up if he does.” (p. 9.)
LM
LOU
Good points Lou. Remember Jesus didn’t ask the rich young ruler to be willing to forsake, but to forsake his possessions. The LS advocates can easily fall into the opposite error of the health and wealth gospel. The so-called ’suffering and poverty gospel’. This easy fall into ascetic and pharisee like attitudes on externals. I know some who belong to Anabaptist groups, who would think all of our exspensive ties, suits, million dollar publishing ministries, costly, air conditioned churches-would be symbols of greed to them. Keep in mind that there’s always someone with stricter standards then us, who in their eyes, they may question our salvation. That’s the quagmire you get into when you start looking at YOUR committment and surrender, rather than Christ alone.
Hi Shane:
Thanks for the input. I’m quite certain that most LS men would not go the “health and wealth” route.
You mention, “looking at your commitment and surrender, rather than Christ alone.” This is another pitfall of the Lordship gospel. The lost man made a commitment, when he finds he can’t live up to it, he may become frustrated.
You might like to check out my blogsite.
LM
http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Lou,
I agree with John Mac. The ruler was unwilling. However Peter says, “We have left all and followed You.”
I really believe turning to God in repentance and faith is how someone becomes saved. It’s a gift from God.
The whole experience is by God’s grace.
He grants sorrow for sin.
He grants repentance.
He grants faith.
He opens the heart.
He takes a heart of stone and makes it a heart of flesh.
And with our new heart we genuinely experimantally encounter the Holy One, who died for us, His elect.
The Scriptures teach for men to repent. And it’s God who grants them repentance.
The Scriptures teach that man must believe the gosepl. And it’s God who grants the faith.
He grants it all.
It’s all God.
No man can do this.
“And those who heard it said, ‘Who then can be saved?’ Jesus said, ‘With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all thngs are possible.”
Jesus a little later comes upon Jerusalem. He weeps over the people. He says, “How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you WERE NOT WILLING.’”
People are unwilling to come into the light. Their hearts are dead.
They need to be willing to turn from their sinful ways, and turn to God.
And once again, it’s not works, it’s 100% pure grace when one repents and believes, and the angels in heaven rejoice.
The Lord receives all the glory.
Have a great Lord’s day.
Don:
Repentance and faith are vital for salvation. Dr. MacArthur, however, conditioned the ruler’s salvation on a willingness to “forsake all, forsake everything, give up all his earthly possessions.” This cannot be considered, believing, faith or repentance.
LM
Lou,
I appreciate your heart. I disagree. I believe it is exactly that.
Faith and repentance both are needed, and they are both granted by a sovereign Lord by His sovereign grace.
And nothing can surely be said of man’s part in this salvation. It is completely God’s mercy. He saves us to the uttermost.
God receives all the glory.
Nothing in my hands I bring,
Simply to the Cross I cling,
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless look to Thee for grace,
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Savior, or I die.
The Lord saves, and He alone. Have a wonderful Lord’s day in His love, joy, and rest.
Lou,
One more thought. My brain isn’t working so good I have a cold.
Forsaking all is repenting. Do we repent completely at the moment of salvation. No.
Peter said he forsook all for Christ. Jesus acknowledged that all who do will be blessed. Did he genuinly forsake all? No.
Our life is a life of continual forsaking, and it begins when we come to Christ, and forsake all for Him.
He becomes our treasure, when he opens our eyes, and we gladly give up all for Him, as Peter did.
I understand where you are coming from, and I see your point. I do consider it, and will discuss it with the elders in my church.
Don:
Late for me too.
Forsaking ought to be the natural response/outcome from a geunie conversion. Forsaking is not the requirement for eternal life, it is the result of eternal life. What Dr. MacArthur has done, which is wrong, is made the results of, the requirements for salvation. In actuality he demands an upfront commitment to the results in “exchange” for salvation.
Forsaking all can be a fruit (result) of genuine repentance, but forsaking is not the root that results in salvation.
You wrote, “Our life is a life of continual forsaking, and it begins when we come to Christ, and forsake all for Him.”
I would rephrase it this way, “Our life is a life of continual forsaking, and it begins once we have come to Him, and have received Him by faith…”
I mentioning only faith above, I want to assure you I do not negate belief and repentance, they are essentials for the reception of salvation.
By the way, I think I am reading the regeneration before faith position in your notes. If I am correct, I would caution you to avaoid taking the depravity of man to an extreme inability of man to respond to the gospel unless he has first been regenerated, born again. If you are interested I can send you some helpful notes on this.
LM
Jerry said:
While reading the Bible I was convicted that I was a gospel hypocrite because I professed to believe in Jesus [had prayed the prayer] but lived a life of wanton sin for many years as a teen. I was pierced to the heart by the Scriptures and knew that some day – Jesus would say to me, ‘Depart from me you who practice lawlessness’- if I stayed on the broad road I was on.
Jerry I think that’s great that you came to this conclusion through the Holy Spirit’s work. But let me ask you this, don’t you think that you could’ve just been a “carnal/baby” Christian with no assurance of your salvation vs. being a person who thought they were saved, but wasn’t?
The hard teachings of Jesus require nothing but trusting Him alone for salvation–if the amount of works one does is the sole barometer for determing salvation–then the Pharisees of Jesus’ day could’ve concluded that they were all “saved” (as they did)–but in fact they were actually all sons of Hell according to Jesus (Mt. 23). It’s all about the heart/motive isn’t it? God is truly concerned with the attitude of the heart–some people just have very very under-developed hearts (i.e. baby Christians).
In Christ
Bobby – that is the million dollar question and I have honestly asked it and evaluated from many different perspectives.
On the one hand – Christians do sin
Peter denied the Lord – not once but 3 times
But – he also went out and wept bitterly afterwards
David – committed adultery and murder and apparently did not repent until after Nathan confronted him close to a year later
However – In Psalm 32 – we find his reflection on that period of his life and how miserable he was in sin
For me personally –
I grew up in an evangelical church and heard the facts of the gospel regularly
My life as a teen – after making a flimsy profession of faith and praying a prayer – was filled with sin [drugs, drinking, sex, etc.]
Around 20 years of age – after wrecking my car while drunk driving – I finally saw the light! I realized my profession was hypocritical – highly suspect at best – most likely bogus.
The reason I came to this conclusion was because of the Scriptures – not because of how I felt
I read things like ‘Many will say Lord, lord . . . and Jesus will say, depart from me you who practice lawlessness.’
James 1:22 – ‘Prove yourselves doers of the word and not merely hearers only who delude themselves.’
James 2:17 – ‘Faith without works is dead’
Titus 1:16 – ‘professing to know God but by their deeds they deny Him.’
Gal. 5:21 – ‘envying, drunkenness, carousing and things like these, of which i forwarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.’
I John 2:3 – ‘By this we know that we have come to know Him if we keep His commandments’
I John 3:10 – ‘By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious; anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God. . .’
The list goes on an on
I literally was blown away when I came across these verses in the Bible and saw how deceived I had been in thinking I was in a saved state
When it comes down to it – questions like, ‘How much sin can a person commit and still be saved?’ – are not easily answered
I appreciated Matt’s reply on that question – that it has to be considered on an individual basis – but if someone goes thru the steps of church discipline and fails to repent – we are to consider them an unbeliever
True sons will be disciplined by God Himself to share in His holiness – Heb. 12
If no discipline – no sonship
And I do believe that for a true believer who tries to live in a state of rebellion against God – refusing reproof and correction – they are subject to the discipline of a premature death
What I do not believe is that a genuine believer can live in a state of prolonged carnality and not see the the discipline of God in their lives.
Do I know how long that period can be? No
Do I know what method of discipline God will use? No
My job is to preach the gospel – which I must go do now
Have a great Lord’s Day!
Lou,
Real quick story. After the Lord changed my heart in 1984, my best friend didn’t know what to make of me. I loved Bible studies on Friday nights instead of raquet ball and beer all night.
He asked me about it, so I shared John 3:16, and that he needed to believe the gospel and repent.
He said that he wasn’t ready to give up all for this “kind of life. I never mentioned that he had to. But when he said that to me, I said, “That’s between you and the Lord”.
I could have said, “Jesus doesn’t want you to forsake all”. But I just can not say that.
Is this what you would have said? “You don’t need to forsake all”.
I do believe that man is dead spiritually, and that he needs to be quickened, or made alive by the Holy Spirit. God the Father calls all to repentance and faith in His Son, Jesus Christ, however only those whom “have heard and learned from the Father” comes to Christ.
Be happy to look over your notes though. Iron sharpens iron, and we become stronger for Him, and His glory.
Donsands
Is beer and sports all? Did you really forsake all? I’m sure compared to the Amish and old order Mennonites, we have not really forsaken all. That’s the problem with this emphasis on self-effort for salvation. ALL to one may be beer and cigarettes, all to another may be jewelry, any extra money, wordly clothes, a car, any comforts and enjoyment of this world. I know people from the Anabaptist background whose idea of forsaking all, is radically different than the Reformed idea. So-called forsaking all is so subjective, have you really forsaken all to be saved? The vicarious, substitutionary atonement is objective if you receive it by faith. There’s always one more thing to forsake with this view, a kind of Protestant monk.
Shane – does an adulterer need to give up adultery to come to Christ?
“Then answered Peter and said to Him, Behold we have forsaken all, and followed You; what shall we have therefore?
And Jesus said to them, … And every one that has forsaken houses, or brethern, or sisters, of father, or mother, of wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.” Matt. 19:27,28-29
Shane,
God’s grace is what causes a man like Simon to become a Simon Peter, and to forsake all.
God does the same work of grace in all who repent and trust in Christ, and forsake the world and follow Him. Is it complete forsaking? No. It’s a life of forsaking, as I said early to Lou. (Read my earlier comments).
Just as no one could ever be as righteous as Christ, but what does John tell us.
“Little children let no man deceive you: he that does righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous.” 1 John 3:7
There’s always grace at the foundation of every doctrine. “But for the grace of God”, should be engraved in our hearts and minds.
How do you interpret these verses of Scripture? Let me know.
Thanks. Peace and grace.
Donsands
Positionally we have the imputed righteousness of Christ. We are called to a holy life, but their can be many struggles along the way. As someone who is very familar with the theology of Wesley and Finney. Many of the same verses you use, are used to support entire sanctification or Christian perfection. We are called to live up to our position in Christ, but like Peter we can fall grievously into sin. I think there is a distinction between discipleship and salvation. You have to be careful of having a moral government theory of the atonement. Don’t you feel there is a danger of morbid introspection where you’re always examing whether you did enough for God? Is that a real gift? I feel many LS advocates come dangerously close to mixing grace with works for salvation. The emphasis is on what we can do. I can see very little difference between LS advocates and Arminianism on this issue. Keep in mind that RCs say it’s all done by grace as well. What about Lot and Samson? They were also considered righteous, but their behavior was less than ideal. Grace and Peace.
Jerry and Donsands,
Good stuff. I too experienced Gods grace in such a way. According to FG I was saved when I was out drinking and sleeping around. However, God saved me 4 years ago and it was then that I became a new creation in Christ Jesus and the old was gone. Before that day I believed in my mind, however it was just mental assent. There was NO fruit in my life. It is very dangerous to be teaching the FG position. Many people will believe themselves to be genuinly saved while living like the world. This is a false gospel. Just because someone believes in Jesus intellectually doesn’t mean they have been changed spiritually or inwardly. Jesus got on the Pharisees for this, “Many people confess Me with their lips but their hearts are far from Me.”
I have spoken to many people about Christ and I come across many people who are willing to say a prayer. However, when I bring up the fact that Christ wants us to submit ourselves to Him and let Him run our lives they quickly decide that they are not willing to let Christ be in control. I know many people who have said a prayer but are unwiliing to submit to Christ. Would the FG advocates say that these people are genuine followers of Christ?
Shane,
“always exaiming whether you did enough for God”
I preach strongly against this as someone who considers himself reformed. I do believe one needs to exaime himself, and make his election and calling sure. I also believe the true believer can have blessed assurance without a doubt.
I believe in the sovereign grace of God, and that it is all sufficient for my salvation.
I also believe God has promised to conform His elect into the image of His Son, Jesus Christ.
He does this by the same amazing sovereign grace.
God forgives us. God sanctifies us. God disciplines us. God encourages us. God will never leave us, nor forsake us. He is faithful, and great is His faithfulness. He will honor His promises.
“many struggles along the way”
Absolutely. I have had more than many, and still struggle. But if it’s a struggle, that’s good. I think many say they struggle, but in reality they aren’t really struggling, they just keep sinning, and say it’s a struggle.
God is faithful to be a good Father to His children. He will train us. He is conforming us into the image of His holy Son. He promised to do this, and He will never go back on His promise.
Jesus said, “The good soil, is a good heart, and this heart will bear fruit. It may only be 30 fold, or 60, or perhaps 100. The thing the Lord tells us here is that there shall be fruit.
The fruit is love, joy, righteousness, truth, gentleness, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, patience, self-control, peace, holiness, godliness and long-suffering.
This is the fruit God produces in the hearts of His saints. It is a process that causes much pruning, and comes forth only through a lot of blood, sweat, and tears.
And the goal is the glorifying of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father. The omnipotent Holy Spirit does this work, and it’s because of God’s grace, and grace alone.
Samuel,
Good question. Would love to hear a response.
Thank you Jerry for sharing part of your test. I’ll have to get back to you later in response.
Donsands
Of course if you’re reformed you would agree with the Westminster Confession that we all sin every day in “thought,word and deed.” I think the clouding of this issue is making every verse refer to one’s eternal destiny, rather than one’s spiritual growth. In the book of Romans you see the perfect progression. In Romans 1 and 2 both the pagan,flagrant sinner and the self-righteous,religious sinner are condemned. From Rom.3-5 the great doctrine of justification by faith is expounded. Rom.6-8 deals with sanctification of the believer. Also, Rom.12:1,2 is addressed to brethren, not for salvation, but dedication of one’s body and life. We must be totally convinced of the freeness of the gospel before we can truly grow. What a miserable condition to be put back under the bondage of the law for salvation and sanctification. You used the example of the vine in John 15 and it is a good one. Fruit on the vine often grows without us being aware of it, yet nevertheless it is still growing. There is an almost mysterious element with it. To use an analogy an apple tree in S.Cal. may grow alot quicker than one in Canada, but they both will grow in time. My biggest concern with the LS emphasis, is that we can become preoccupied with our own fruit, and try to gain our justification by our sanctification.Other-wise putting the cart before the horse. Grace and Peace.
Shane, Good thoughts. Let me add to them another thought.
“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Rom. 3:31
“O how I love Your law! it is my meditation all the day.” Psalm 119:97
I once hated the law, and hated God. I now love God and His law, according to the inner man. The Lord has circumcised my heart. He took a heart of hardness, and changed it, and engraved His law upon it.
“After those days, says the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be My people.” Jer. 31:33; Heb. 10:16
Donsands
It’s true the law is holy and good, the law can show me that I’m a sinner, but it can’t save me or sanctify me. If the law could have we wouldn’t of needed the cross. We already had 613 laws from the Mosaic law. Read Rom. 7. I agree that the law is holy and good, but no man keep it, it’s our tutor to lead us to Christ. Christ is the end of the law in that he has fulfilled the law. The law shows the holiness of God, but it condemns man as a lost sinner, to drive him to the grace of God. Here are some good verses on this subject: Gal. 2:19-21; Gal. 3:2-5. I agree with you that I reverence God’s law in that it show God’s holy standard (Rom. 7:22-25) When you get to Rom. 8, you realize it’s the power of the Holy Spirit that gives us the power to have victory over the power of the flesh (Rom.8:3,4) Grace and peace.
Shane,
Is the law written on your heart? Do you love the Law? These were the verses I was hoping you would comment on, not to mention, Romans 3:31.
Paul says we establish the law. Amen.
I’m not saying the law saves.
Donsands,
Firstly, the law has a purpose to show us God’s holiness and thus to show man his sinfulness. We both would agree were not saved by keeping the law, but the difference is on the rule of life or sanctification. Who is the law for?:
1 Tim 1:9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are rebellious, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers (NASB)
If the law could not save us how could it santify us. The Covenant guys want the blessings of supposed law, but not curses that go with disobeying it (Deut 28). The same could be said for the saying the Church is Israel in God’s divine plan.
It’s grace that gives us power over sin. Rom 6:14,15.
Rom. 3:31: In this verse we establish the law, in that we see it’s real purpose to drive us to Christ. Christ is the end of the law. A careful reading of Gal 3:21-25 and Gal 3:3 shows this.
Heb 10:16 is referring to the New Covenant which is contrasted with the Old Covenant. When we have been born again or regenerated and this will produce new desires from within based on Mt. Calvary not Mt. Sinai with its law written in stone. The letter kills but spirit gives life. Under grace we have greater blessing because the Holy Spirit has come in its fulness to indwell us.
Any way these our much bigger issues than just law and grace. It also affects eschatology, ecclesiology and positional truths revealed in the epistles. Grace and peace.
Shane,
Good thoughts. The Law brings us to Christ. Amen. We are actually dead to the Law, and alive to Christ. And the Law is written on the child of God’s heart.
The Law says to honor the Lord’s name. To have no other gods. To make no images. To keep the Sabbath. To honor your dad and mom. To not steal. To not bear false witness. To not covet.
My heart now desires to keep these. I once didn’t care, and in fact abused the Lord’s name. Now I love the Lord’s name.
God changed the heart, and He writes on it His holy law.
The Law outside the heart, the one written on stone, does kill and condemn. Amen.
And only Christ’s blood and broken body, along with His perfect life, deliver us from the condemnation of the Law. All praise to His glorious Name. And I shall boast only in the Cross. I am crucified to the world, and the world to me.
I believe all regenerated souls will struggle and grow. As Paul said, “For I delight in the Law of God after the inward man. But I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind.”
One more thought. The Lord said, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. 5:19
I can’t emphasize grace enough in all this. Jesus truly is the only great One. And yet he will say to those, His elect, on that Day: “Well done, come and enter.” And yet no one deserves to enter, and no one is worthy, except by His mercy and grace.
Christ did it all. He died for our sins. He comes and seeks us. He saves us. He brings us home. He gives us His Holy Spirit as a guaruntee, so that we can live a sanctified life, so that his Name is blessed, and our Father is glorified, and so that we shall enter His presence, and even enjoy the presence of our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ forever and ever. Amen.
(sorry this is so long, I cut out as much as I could)
John, again, I want to say that I am glad that you are interested in what the Bible says about Repentance. I agree that the Scriptures are the final authority.
Most of us in the FG camp are from the Dallas, Dispensational/Literal Hermeneutic camp. As a result of this methodology, we see important distinctions those from the less literal camps (ie. Covenant/Reformed) do not see. Lordship issues can not be resolved on whose list of proof texts is best. The question should be, “What methodology, assumptions, presuppositions and preunderstandings are you going to carry into a text? How are they coloring my interpretation?
I think this issue is a good example of how inductive study of words of faith or repentance or regeneration in Scripture should trump any system of theology, no matter what it is, or how long it has been around, or no matter how many agree with it. You do not determine whether a view is right by proof texts or taking a show of hands.
For instance, 5 Point Calvinists such as you say things like, “Faith and Repentance is a Gift,” and “Regeneration precedes faith.” There are intelligent Godly men from Dallas, and other solid Biblically based schools who disagree with Reformed 5 Point Calvinism. Can’t we set aside our Theology and actually look at the texts aside Theological preunderstandings? Obviously we cannot do this perfectly, but can we at least try? Can’t we just let the texts (like John 3:16) speak for themselves, and pretend we are reading them for the first time?
Those in the Dallas Dispensational/Literal hermeneutic camp see a distinction between the Church and Israel, Law and Grace, and also differences in the requirement for eternal life, and the requirement for fellowship or reward. This distinction in hermeneutics is very clearly laid out in L.S. Chafer’s works. Failure to recognize the distinction between the requirements for Discipleship/Fellowship and rewards, and the single requirement (faith) to gain eternal life is a major problem. Shouldn’t we be crystal clear in our evangelistic conversations with unbelievers we talk to every day on how to tell the difference between a requirement for eternal life, and a requirement for the Christian walk? How can we witness to unsaved people if we are not clear on the difference? How can we have eternal life and be sure of it if we don’t know the difference? I could not witness to people if I was not certain.
If your hermeneutics starts carrying “implications” from references to Christian Life issues, and imports that into the simple word “believe” in John 3:16, then the terms of getting eternal life have been transformed. It is very dangerous to say “believe” really implies something else.
You make it sound like we in the FG see no need for Repentance. We in the FG camp have written and spoken volumes about Repentance. We had a whole conference on it (1998). Unbelievers and Believers should repent.
However, words such as repent and repentance do not all have ONE meaning in Scripture – they have a range of meanings based upon context. It can mean repentance for eternal life (which can be seen in some other texts) or repentance for fellowship or forgiveness. It can mean to stop sinning. It can mean to change your mind about something. If you start talking about what implications we need to import into “believe”, which implication to you carry in with you? Where do you draw the line? (Please see Dr. Hodges book, “Harmony with God, A Fresh Look at Repentance” for a good treatment of the various uses of the words.)
Are we saying we should never use other cross references? NO! There are instances where we should carry implications into the text. A good example would be the Attributes of God. However, this has to do with the character or nature of God, which is pretty consistent (!!!!) throughout Scripture. For example, Omniscience is Omniscience wherever you see it in the text. However, the “meaning” of the word repent, faith, salvation, obedience, commitment, is NOT consistent, and there are various ranges of meanings of words, and various contexts which need to be examined. Salvation from what? Repentance from what? Belief in what? To what end? For what purpose? You have to actually study each use in context to see these things. . . you don’t glob everything in one ball and say, “this is what REAL faith includes” or “this is saving faith.” That is a very subjective and dangerous practice.
For instance, at the beginning of this article John MacArthur stated:
(beginning of quote)
Isn’t repentance included by implication in the following Johannine descriptions of saving faith?
John 3:19–21: And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.
John 10:26–28: But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them (emphasis added).
John 12:24–26: Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life loses it; and he who hates his life in this world shall keep it to life eternal. If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there shall My servant also be; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him.
(end of quote)
This is not “proof” of your point. You associate short texts of scripture which people who agree with you or who believe in 5 point Reformed Calvinism already agree on and use as proof texts. It is bad hermeneutics to simply string together 3 passages, with no exegesis provided. (just a few words of comment interspersed in the texts would suffice)
This is not good example of the use of Scripture by person who has such a high view of Bible exposition!
More importantly! The word “Saved” or “Salvation” does not have a single meaning. A person can be “Saved” by faith alone. A person can be “Saved” by works. A person can be “Saved” by faith plus works. A person can be “Saved” by a faith that works. “Saved” has a range of meanings. When terms for Salvation are used in the OT and NT, the meaning has to be derived from the context. The words can refer to deliverance from anything. It can be salvation from premature death, earthly woes, salvation of those who have eternal life from the death dealing consequences of sin (i.e. Hebrews or James 2), or salvation from hell (i.e. the theme of John’s Gospel). If you blur the distinction between the verses dealing with requirements for temporal salvation (i.e. the Gospel According to Jesus), with the requirement (notice. . . singular) for going to heaven (i.e. John 3:16), you wind up with a lot of problems in your interpretation, and application. If you say a text is talking about deliverance from hell, when it is really talking about fellowship, then you will err in your interpretation and application of that text. In fact, it will probably mean that your hearers will miss the whole point of the text.
In summary. . . there is nothing in your 3 “proof texts” about repentance from John’s Gospel (or anywhere else that the single requirement for eternal life is faith alone in Christ alone), because we don’t know what part of the range of meaning of “repentance” you are carrying into these texts. You can make it mean whatever you want.
On the other hand, we in the FG camp try with all our might to set our preconceived notions aside. We try with all our might, to look at each passage as if we were the Bereans. The question should not be, “What list of texts will I volley upon the enemy to really get ‘em. The question should be, “What system of hermeneutics, and Theological preunderstandings am I carrying into the text?” We in the FG camp search high and low for true exegetical work on Lordship issues, and all we see are studies by 5 Point Reformed Calvinists defending their views by quoting other proof texts and other 5 Point Reformed Calvinists. That does not prove the view is correct. Can’t the majority of Theologians be wrong about Soteriology? Didn’t the Reformation demonstrate that?
Any view that brings “implication” “or implications” into a clear verse such as John 3:16 seems suspect from the start. Catholics and Mormons and many others would agree other things are implied in “believe” in John 3:16. It is not always wrong to bring meaning from other texts, but that you should be bringing meaning from clear texts into the unclear ones, and not the other way around. However, in the case of John’s Gospel, the burden of proof is on the Lordship – Reformed Calvinist camp to prove that repentance is truly implied in John 3:16, and all the other statements that eternal life is by faith alone, and not upon our camp to prove that it is NOT implied.
- Don Reiher
Host of GES Webboard (and a fan of John’s other teaching)
Jerry Morningstar:
(sorry this is so long. . . I cut out as much as I could).
(begin quote)
Does it matter to you if a person finds assurance in the FG system and winds up in hell because of shallow gospel preaching?
(end quote)
Wow. Even though this is not specifically about “repentance in John’s Gospel,” I will respond to you because you are demonstrating a typical lack of understanding of what the FG camp is. Nobody finds assurance, it is based upon them being saved. FG is not a “system” like Calvinism is a system. FG preachers are anything BUT shallow.
We in the FG camp are human. . . we don’t claim to be perfect, we often miscommunicate, but we are trying all the time to be clearer. We try to use Biblical terminology, and Biblical phrases, with Biblical meanings and definitions, as much as possible when we witness to unsaved folks. We in the FG camp believe God is Sovereign, and can save folks even when we botch up our message, but we are constantly trying to be Biblically accurate, and to be more effective instruments in God’s hands.
Thank you for your testimony. Here is mine.
I grew up in a church that was very unclear on the Gospel, until a new pastor came in and converted the church to 5 point Calvinism and Reformed Lordship. That church went from bad to worse. They stopped all evangelistic programs in the church mostly because they were busy converting everyone to 5 point Calvinism. I find this more and more common these days, but, well back to my story. I rarely went back to that church, and went to a weeknight FG ministry (Florida Bible College style Youth Ranch), which, ironically, used to be supported by the church. A clear Gospel was taught, and I eventually unlearned all the false teaching from that church and got the message that was NOT going to heaven when I died. That is what the FG Gospel really does. I finally stopped looking at my works, trying to gain victory over sin, or looking for fruit in my life for assurance of salvation, and all the things the church was teaching. I gave up all the activity, and self examination, and simply believed in Christ alone, apart from any of the other introspection which I had been taught. I can remember the very moment when that happened, and for the first time in my life I was sure I was going to heaven when I died, because it no longer mattered what I did, good or bad. No turning from sin and changing the direction I am going (which is what I believe repentance basically is). No fruit needed for assurance. No prayer. No commitments or broken promises. Just simple faith alone in Christ alone, nothing more, nothing less, nothing more. I was 19 years old, and finally finished my long, confused journey through one confused Gospel message after another.
We in the FG camp do not hold that a person actually gets eternal life by making Christ Lord, or by praying a prayer or raising their hand to accept Christ, or doing any of the dozens of other things we see in Gospel tracts and presentations (i.e. 3 things you need to do to get to heaven). You can go up and down the street and ask people if they believe that Jesus died for them, and most people will say, “Yes.” Those of us in the FG camp do not say, “Great, now let me give you assurance of salvation.” This is a caricature of the FG person.
We in the FG camp try as best as we can to find out if a person is really going to heaven, by using one of a variety of methods such as the Evangelism Explosion questions, to examine the object of their faith. Faith does not save. We are saved if the object of our faith is able to save. For example, I ask, “If you were to die today, would you be sure that you are going to heaven.” Most folks say “I hope so,” or “I don’t know,” or “No,” but lets use your example of someone who raised their hand at a “Gospel” presentation at camp as a kid. Let us assume they say “Yes” to the first EE question. I then ask the second question, “If you were to die and stand before God and He were to ask, ‘Why should I let you into heaven?’ What would you say?” They say, “Because I raised my hand and prayed to accept Christ as my Savior at youth camp,” or, “Because I believe Jesus died on the cross to pay for my sins.” No FG person would ever stop there and say, “Oh you are going to heaven.”. We would ask something like, “What do you mean by that, could you elaborate?” We would ask some other probing questions to see if they really are relying upon Christ’s promise of eternal life on the basis of faith alone in Christ alone, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. We try to probe as deep as we can to see the object of that faith, and if it was not saving, to point to passages like John 3:16 or John 6:47 which point them to faith alone in Christ alone. We don’t look at their lifestyle and say. . . “Oh great, you professed faith and are showing progress in good works, you must be Saved.” Unsaved folks can profess faith, be very generous and caring, and have lots of good works. I know many unsaved churches which have a lot of really good preachers and people in them. You simply cannot judge by a person’s works. We in the FG movement think it is absolutely essential to examine the OBJECT of their faith at that point they professed it point in time, and not base their assurance on the subjective method of looking for good works.
I would say that most people that actually say “yes” to the first EE question, flunk the second question, even people in Church who have been “Christians” for years. Most people are relying upon their works in some form . . . faith plus works, or faith that works (really the same as faith plus works to unsaved ears). Or continued faith (i.e. Arminians). If performance or works are in there at all . . . sorry, we don’t stop assuming they are hell bound until they can say what they are trusting in.
In almost EVERY evangelistic conversation I have been in, where I have tried to communicate the Biblical fact that a person can only get to heaven by faith alone, in Christ alone, they say, “You mean I can simply believe in Christ and then live any way I please and still go to heaven?” or something to that effect. I respond with an emphatic YES YES YES. . . you get it! If they do not ask that question, then they do not understand the terms of the Gospel. If they were asking a Roman Catholic priest that question, the priest would say NO and promptly point to James 2:24. If I were to say yes, BUT ___________, (fill in the blank) then no matter what I put in that blank, at that point I would be communicating that eternal life is NOT by faith alone in Christ alone. Unsaved people don’t see the difference between eternal life truths and Sanctification truths. Maybe after they are saved, and you start having Bible study with them, and firm up their understanding of the Gospel, and they share how they are not sure they are going to heaven, THEN I would start dealing with whatever you would fill in that blank with. For example, I would say something to the effect that now that it has been 2 months since you indicated you received eternal life. You have been coming to church too. Out of gratefulness for what God has done in your life, by his Grace, we have an obligation to serve Christ, and I would start explaining to them about the principles of Spiritual growth, obedience, commitment and Christ’s demands for Discipleship. Some folks need a little more time or less time, but we in the FG camp always push believers (not unbelievers) toward the goal of being sold out for Christ. Our standards for Discipleship are much higher than Lordship Theology’s. No unbeliever could even consider meeting the Biblical standards of it costing everything. If you talk about the obligations of the Christian life while you are witnessing to someone, don’t you agree that you might POSSIBLY be communicating a false message? That is what confused me, and I am sure it is confusing millions of folks around the world. We must not jumble the requirement for Justification with the requirements for Sanctification in front of unsaved hearers. Wait until they are saved, and sure of it, and then they will have the foundation for a life of commitment and obedience.
An important key concept in the FG Movement is that assurance is of the essence of “saving” faith, that is, the initial act of belief which is the sole condition for obtaining eternal life. This is core to the doctrine of Justification by Faith as taught by the reformers. The focus should be upon Christ as the object of our faith, and not on subsequent works.
Side Note: We in the FG camp do not believe there is anything special about the “faith” itself. We do not believe you have to be a theologian or philosopher to understand what faith REALLY is. In John 3:16 it simply means being convinced that something is true. We believe saving faith is passive, not something you do. It is a light going on because you have just gotten enough content or evidence to be convinced. Faith that saves is propositional, that is, there is content to believed, and you either believe it is true or you do not. Faith is the opposite of work, and it is not a decision. Making a decision to believe that Christ grants eternal life on the basis of faith alone is simply not possible. You are either convinced or you are not. The moment a person is convinced that Christ can save them from hell, by faith alone in Christ alone, nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else, then they HAVE believed. There is no second step needed. We can pray with them, but the prayer does not save them, they either already are saved, or they are not. We can have them raise their hand, but raising their hand does not save them, they are already saved or they are not..
If a person is not sure they have eternal life, or they indicate that the object of their faith is not saving, or they are not convinced of the saving power of Christ alone to save them, then no FG’er would ever let them think they are going to heaven. On the other hand, if a person answers the first EE question “NO” then we would probe by seeing if they EVER were sure, and then probe why. I think that many proponents of the Lordship Gospel used to be sure they were saved, but then got confused by the false teaching . Nevertheless, thanks to the Grace of God, if they have eternal life they are still going to heaven, no matter what they do or don’t do, even if they are teaching false doctrine. Nevertheless, if anyone flunks on both EE questions, and they never were sure they were going to heaven, then we play it safe and say they do not have eternal life and we assume they are bound for hell. I see more and more folks who were just like me. . . totally confused by unclear Gospel presentations. We in the FG camp believe it does matter what you tell unsaved people. If a person either intentionally or unintentionally is led to trust even 1% in their works for eternal life, then they don’t have it. We are not on neutral ground while we are witnessing to someone. Satan is actively blinding their minds while we are talking to them (2 Cor 4:1-6). We have to have people praying for us (See L.S. Chafer’s book, True Evangelism). We have to be crystal clear, to allow God’s truth, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to shine through the Satanic fog and draw them to Christ. We must not ADD to the fog.
BTW: I would love to comment on J.I. Packer’s quote, but that will have to be another day. I will say, he is one of my favorite theologians, and I have learned a lot from him, even though he is wrong on Lordship Salvation.
John 6:47 “Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.”
Don Reiher,
GES Webboard Host.
Host of GES Webboard.
If J.I. Packer teaches Lordship salvation, is it no wonder he signed the ECT document? A Lordship proponent would be delighted to sign a covenant agreement with the Catholic Church because they seem to validate the good works and proof of their faith as Pope John Paul always quoted from James, “You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone”.
“And He (Jesus) said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God”. (Luke 16v15)
If J.I. Packer is such a great theologian, once again I am left confused as to why he would endorse this convenant with the Catholic Church….may I ask where was the Holy Spirit’s discernment?
The ECT document not only calls Catholics our “brothers and sisters”, but they also agree to witness together for the cause of Christ. I guess the Catholic Church was tired of the evangelical churches prosyletizing or “sheep stealing”. Do you think God was delighted with this? Do you think this made Jesus Lord?
God made it very clear through Paul in Galatians that we are to have nothing to do with those who teach “another gospel”. In fact doing so is eternally damned because that is tampering with God’s holy gospel and when it has been watered down in any way, it has eternal consequences and I would not want to be responsible for that in any way. All the men who signed that document never repented and/or publicly removed their names from the document.
I would rather be guilty before God of sin than tampering with His gospel.
Like I said before no wonder we have so much confusion. This is why I don’t lean on an imperfect man from the pulpit to teach me truth. Jesus is the truth and He supplies my need through the Holy Spirit.
I truly think the men who signed this document need to sincerely rethink their commitment to the gospel. These are just my thoughts and if someone doesn’t like it I can’t help that because it is the truth and these evangelicals leaders need to be accountable to that. It is not my place to judge a man but I have the right to speak what I feel is right because certainly I have had more people tell me what they think of me and again I am doing this in the most respectful way that I can articulate it.
Protestants and Catholics….Do they now agree? A remarkable achievement or a tragic compromise???? The consequences have been so destructive to the gospel…..the all-sufficient work of Christ at Calvary.
Some Protestants and Catholics obviously agree on social, moral and political issues but they can not agree on the gospel (how a man or woman gets to heaven through God’s narrow way….no flesh needed to add to it) and they have sacrificed the purity of the gospel for a culture movement. What a shame.
I still think however, that we should always encourage one another to live godly lives with the motivation to please God in everyway that we can, being led by His Spirit so that we may glorify Him. But let us all remember that the battle between the flesh and spirit is a real one and is constantly waging war against our souls because ultimately it is a spiritual battle in heavenly places between God and Satan and one day Satan will finally be destroyed but he will do as much damaged as he can before his time is over and I pray that Jesus will come quickly so that He can set up His righteous kingdom to the glory of the Father.
If I have offended anyone, forgive me for my intentions are not to offend
but rather speak the truth in love and any problems anyone has please take them up with the Lord.
Thankyou for allowing me to speak from my heart and again this is not written in a spirit of judgement for I stand guilty before God myself from my own sin (we all have it)….. but the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all our sin and He is our righteous advocate.
Gospel of John and understanding of the Apostle’s Gospel to include forsaking of dead works and living for CHRIST, instead of just a confession alone.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (FREE FROM SIN)
1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
1Jo 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
Repentance is believing and believing is the origin of good works.
Believing is the softening of the heart toward God and the softening of the heart toward God is repentance.
May every repentance follow my initial repentance, and may my childish faith of easy justificaiton, be the adult faith of total surrender.
Dr. MacArthur & Brother Busenitz:
This is late in coming, but an important note for clarification of a misunderstanding about the make-up of the so-called Free Grace movement.
I want to dispel a misnomer. The misnomer, and it is a major misnomer, is that the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) is the voice of the Free Grace (FG) movement in general.
The GES has in fact become a shrinking cell of FG extremists that have fallen into the trap of Zane Hodges’ “Crossless/Deityless” interpretation of the Gospel. This “contrary doctrine” of Hodges and Bob Wilkins’s “ new interpretation of the Gospel has been the cause of “division and offences” in the FG camp and churches. (Rom. 16:17-18).
The teachings of Hodges is what has come to be known and accurately defined as the “Crossless Gospel,” “ReDefined Free Grace Theology” and the “Promise-Only Gospel.” It is largely because of GES’s heretical views of the Gospel; many men in the Free Grace community have separated from GES and do not want their name or ministry to be identified with the GES.
On the issue of repentance: the Hodges view is widely rejected by most men in the Free Grace community. Dr. Charlie Bing, in his dissertation on LS, noted a concern with Hodges view of repentance. In my revised edition of In Defense of the Gospel I have added a section to alert my readers to the absurdity of the GES view of repentance.
The Free Grace Alliance (FGA) was formed in part to become and is the new home of many men who have departed GES over the egregious errors coming from Hodges and Wilkin. Exposure of the egregious errors of Hodges, Wilkin, Neimela, Myers, and lesser knowns like Antonio da Rosa has put GES in cardiac arrest. It is my hope and prayer the GES is soon to become totally isolated and outside any relevant discussion of the Gospel.
May I share this article with your guests, Is “ReDefined” Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology? See- http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-re-defined-free-grace-theology-free.html
The article will help readers understand that Hodges & Wilkin do not speak for, and do NOT represent the general population of men who identify themselves as members of the so-called Free Grace community.
The Free Grace community has been fractured, and it is a good fracture in that large numbers of FG men have withdrawn from GES over the Hodges/Wilkin “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel.
Lord willing not one more unsuspecting believer will fall into the trap of the Crossless gospel.
LM
Just for clarification on Lou Martuneac’s statement:
Earl Radmacher, Founding President of the Free Grace Alliance told me in a conversation I just had with him last night, that Lou Martuneac’s statement that the FGA was formed to become the new home of the people who have departed the GES. Earl Radmacher called such a notion “a lie”.
Furthermore, when it comes to repentance, Dr. Bing, in his dissertation recognized Zane’s point of view on repentance as a bona-fide position in Free Grace theology. Furthermore, Earl Radmacher, in his book, “Salvation” takes the view of Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges on repentance, even including a large appendix to house a chapter discussing repentance taken from a book by Bob Wilkin.
The funny thing is, Nathan, that I have agreed with your assessment of Lou Martuneac’s book, that his doctrine of repentance is indeed Lordship Salvation. He has joined the Free Grace Alliance even though he is in violation of their covenant because of his doctrine of repentance. He does not even speak for a single faction in the whole of the Free Grace movement.
Here are a couple of articles which show that Lou Martuneac is not Free Grace at all, building upon your already well known assessment of his book.
Nathan Busenitz’s assessment of Lou Martuneac’s book where Nathan proclaims Lou Martuneac to hold a Lordship Salvation position on repentance:
Lou and Lordship
Articles I have written building on Nathan’s assessment:
A Lordship Proponent and a Free Grace Advocate both say that Lou Martuneac is Lordship Salvation
Lou Martuneac’s position is against ALL Free Grace Leaders!
The facts of the matter are that the GES has been (since around 1988) and will continue to be the center for study in Free Grace Theology. The FGA was instituted for a different purpose than the GES: to be an evangelistic resourse; while the GES has been all these years engaging in instruction. Earl Radmacher told me last night, who was one of 3 founders of the FGA, and the FGA’s founding president, that Lou’s assessment of this situation is in error.
Thanks for allowing me to share a clarification which stems from Lou Martuneac’s soft-Lordship position.
Antonio da Rosa
My preliminary paragraph should have read thus:
Earl Radmacher, Founding President of the Free Grace Alliance told me in a conversation I just had with him last night, that Lou Martuneac’s statement that the FGA was formed to become the new home of the people who have departed the GES is completely untrue. Earl Radmacher called such a notion “a lie”.
Dear PM Readers:
IMO, the most egregious heretical statements coming from advocates of the GES’s “Crossless/Deityless” interpretation of Gospel can be found and are complied in this article.
Also see the companion article, Heresy of the “Crossless” Gospel: Verified & Affirmed!
Thanks for your patience; nothing further to add.
LM
Dear PM Readers:
IMO, the most egregious heretical statements coming from advocates of the GES’s “Crossless/Deityless” interpretation of Gospel can be found and are compiled in this article.
Also see the companion article, Heresy of the “Crossless” Gospel: Verified & Affirmed!
Thanks for your patience; nothing further to add.
LM