A conversation that Me and Matthew had today on IM

I will be shortly declaring some of the things that I discussed with Earl Radmacher concerning the current state of Free Grace theology. I just haven't gotten around to writing it yet! So be patient. Until then, here is a very helpful (and slightly edited) conversation that I had today with Matthew of This is a Cult. Want to Join? and other blogs. Enjoy!

matthew says:
Hi Antonio

Antonio says:
Hi Matt!!!

matthew says:
How are you doing.

Antonio says:
Oh, I have an upbeat attitude about the future of Free Grace theology.

matthew says:
That is good to hear. How so?

Antonio says:
The dissenters will be relegated to the category of those who are obssessed with disputes. They are a very small faction. And the Lord will do His work. The Lord is faithful, Matt, and His word will go out. Whatever happens, I am over the LM's and JP's and Roksers and Stegalls of the world.

matthew says:
What about the… Miles Stanfords of the world? They might not obsess as much, but they dont like refined FG either.

Antonio says:
Miles Stanford, I believe by this time, has already had remedial courses in soteriology and dispensationalism, so he is no problem anymore.

matthew says:
Do you think most Dispensationalists would be willing to give the refined FG position a hearing?

Antonio says:
I believe so. But the thing is, "progress of revelation" is a dead weight and albatross on the shoulders of many dispensationalists. They have that on the brain. But when explained that it was Jesus Christ himself who dictated the content, in the second to the last book written in the canon, only those beholden to their theology and not open minded will have a problem. I mean, Wouldn't John, who was an apostle, which the church was founded on, know, by the close of the century, that additional Pauline content was required? I would not want to be in the position of any dispensationalist who would state that John's gospel explicitly written for evangelistic purposes was deficient.

matthew says:
I hope you are right. Yes, the tradionalist position makes little sense. I am enjoying Gregory Boyd's book 'God at War.'

Antonio says:
And why not John's gospel, Matthew?

matthew says:
It is really fascinating and makes a lot of sense.

Antonio says:
Is not every treatise from Paul written to saints?

matthew says:
Yes, the Traditionalist has a real problem here.

Antonio says:
Why wouldn't God write a love letter expressly given to share with man how he might have peace with God, everlasting life, salvation from condemnation, and entrance into the kingdom?

matthew says:
Yes.

Antonio says:
I don't know who is going to do it. I don't know if it will be me someday, but a very indepth study needs to be done on the word "gospel" in Paul's literature.

matthew says:
Yes, I think so.

Antonio says:
It is so clear to me now that that word does not ever mean "an exact statement denoting the God-mandated contents of saving faith that must be believed before one can be regenerated". Also, where is it ever stated by these people, who do believe as much, where the content is explicitley defined?

matthew says:
Yes. Strange how people seem to have difficulty seeing this.

Antonio says:
Matthew, we all took it on tradition. I did it! I am guilty!

matthew says:
Yes. I think revising the notion of what (people suppose) the Gospel is seems one of the best things about NT Wright's theology. Not that I am a fan of his.

Antonio says:
It is abundantly clear to me that someone could believe that Jesus died on the cross for sins and rose again bodily from the dead and never "believe in" (pisteou eis) Jesus!

Antonio says:
Explain about Wright

matthew says:
Oh, he rejects the view that the Gospel is all about just being saved from eternal condemnation. He sees it in much broader terms.

Antonio says:
Ahh… Matthew, I do not wish to pat myself on the back, but I have made the concept of "believing in" Jesus more simpler and more concise than any author or theologian or armchair blogger has ever. When the simplicity of it struck me, I was like "why is it that it has never been expounded like this before?” Obviously there has been alot of what I have said (esp. from Chafer, Ryrie, and Hodges), but nothing as precise as my explanation that "believing in" someone is nothing but believing a proposition that consists of one's certain reliance on someone for something specific, or in other words, trust in a person for some benefit.

matthew says:
I think you have done really well. Have you written anything for any journals? I am really impressed with the trouble you have taken in expounding this issue.

Antonio says:
So many people, like Daniel of Doulogos, have so erred in their take on faith!

matthew says:
yes

Antonio says:
What is this "personal" appropriation? What does that objectively look like? I see some merit to thinking in this way (in other words, eternal life must be received by oneself, not by another or communally), but they have defined faith as something greater than simply being convinced something is true.

matthew says:
The law in England defines theft as 'dishonest appropriation.' Just imagine a thief telling a judge it was not 'personal appropriation'!

Antonio says:
Acording to him, it has to have some volitional and emotional aspects. I really love what Clark said, that belief in the sober reality that one has 5 fingers is as much faith as being convinced of some shattering news

matthew says:
Very true.

Antonio says:
I have thought about it. I can't think of any colloquial or social use of the phrase "believe in" (someone or something) that does not fit my definition of said phrase. When does that articulation EVER denote some additionally required understanding (such as ontological or personal considerations) other than that which is explicitely or implicitly supplied by the context wherein it is used?

matthew says:
I think you are right.

Antonio says:
Jesus said "whoever believes in Me"… I did this: I put the phrase "believe in me" on the lips of a thousand different people in a thousand different circumstances. You do the same and you will find that what is being referred to is faith in a proposition which denotes certain and absolute reliance upon an individual for a particular benefit of some kind or another. Wow! I feel that I am articulating this in a clear and beneficial way. I should take this conversation and post it on UoG.

matthew says:
Yes. Can I ask you a question?

Antonio says:
I dare say you should. Please do.

matthew says:
It is about eternal life rather than faith.

Antonio says:
If I can answer it I will. I am shaking with anticipation! Would you let your mind be known?

matthew says:
Jesus said that His opponents think that they have eternal life in the Scriptures. What does He mean? Did they think that they had eternal security?

Antonio says:
Jesus used the phrase in that instance with the general culturally understood sense. Remember the rich youn ruler? He did not ask the question, "What must I do to receive eternal life as a free gift?" He asked, “What must I do to INHERIT eternal life.” The pharisees and scribes thought that they subscribed to Moses in such an exacting way that they merited the privilege of "inheriting" eternal life. They thought that by their adherence to Moses that they were deserving of eternal life. The culturally understood concept of "eternal life" at that time was of one meriting the opportunity of being in the kingdom.

matthew says:
Our Lord was not affirming that they believed they posessed eternal life then?

Antonio says:
Your question immediately made me think about the Calvinists. They believe they have eternal life by evidence (primarily fruit inspection) married with supposition. We know we have eternal life, are certain of it, because of the testimony of God through His Son. He was saying that they believed that they, because of the preponderance of evidence before their eyes, were WORTHY of eternal life.

matthew says:
So that culturally understood concept of eternal life has no bearing on what our Lord means by the term 'eternal life'?

Antonio says:
Yes it does! because the cultural understanding has truths to it. It was just an insufficient understanding. Eternal life IS merited, but not before it is received as a free gift!

matthew says:
Does our Lord' s comment about His opponents not imply present posession of eternal life?

Antonio says:
I think that such an understanding would be reading too much into it: in other words, the present possession of eternal life that we know about through, particularly, the gospel of John. When the rich young ruler asked his question, he did not ask "What things" but "what thing." He thought perhaps that he could call upon the assistance of his wealth to do an act of charity and be assured of future inheritance in the kingdom. What the rich young ruler wanted was what his concept of eternal life, and this was riches and inheritance in a literal eternal, eschatological, Israel-centered kingdom. He thought he could be presently assured of a future position in the kingdom. Of course, this is certainly what we understand eternal life to be; but it is much more than that! It is the present possession of the divine life within us NOW! So their understanding had correct ideas, but was insufficient.

matthew says:
What would you say are the key texts for establishing present posession of divine life NOW? I would just like you to clarify the key texts on present posession of eternal life.

Antonio says:
Well your last statement is a little different than your question. Present possession of eternal life is stated in many places, but discussion of the divine life, presently held is a bit less frequent.

matthew says:
I suppose it is.

Antonio says:
I think my answer to your question would be John 1:12, 13 and John 3:3ff. He gave us the right to be children of God, being born agian not of the will of man but of God. Being born from God rather explicitly shares with us that the moment we become children of God, being born of God, that what is born of God (our regenerated immaterial nature) is properly understood as the divine nature.

matthew says:
So in being born, we enter into a new life. Eternal life.

Antonio says:
Yes, such life, the divine life given to us, must properly be understood as eternal life, because of such is the life of God Himself.

matthew says:
Is sonship in John 1 understood in a different sense to sonship in Romans 8?

Antonio says:
Oh yes

matthew says:
This sonship is not related to heirship.

Antonio says:
The first thing to realize is that authors use words differently. One must first determine usage of words from author’s first in their immediate epistle or gospel, secondly from their writings, and thirdly from other author’s works.

matthew says:
I am piling on the questions tonight! … Yes, they do.

Antonio says:
In John 1 the word used is "tekna", or children. In Romans 8, the word is "uios" or full grown sons.

matthew says:
Wow, big difference. So receiving power is immediate. On the new birth.

Antonio says:
Like in Romans 8:14 "The ones led by the spirit are 'full grown, mature' sons of God (uios). But scroll down… in Romans 8:17 we find, "if children (tekna) then heirs of God" meaning only born again ones, those simply with the new nature and justified at the bar of God. The next part of the verse gives stringent conditions for co-glory and co-heirship, viz. suffering with Him! Let it be known that in Paul, the division isn't as hard and fast as John makes it, but the distinction IS there.

matthew says:
Yes.

Antonio says:
Sometimes Paul uses uios as a general designation for born again ones, but that is understandable. Often words are used interchangeably until it is necessary to disinguish between nuances of two "synonyms".

matthew says:
I think perhaps these finer points in Romans are missed because it is viewed as being primarily about justification.

Antonio says:
"Those led by the Spirit of God are Uios!" Why use tekna 3 verses later? Because Paul was making distinctions!

matthew says:
right… I heard a sermon on Romans 8 a couple of weeks ago that did not pick up on any of these distinctions.

Antonio says:
Listen, one cannot be led unless one follows. Following the Spirit is a condition of being a full grown son who receives with such a designation a right to the privileges of full-grown son status: iow, heirship. Now whether one recieves the lion's share of first-born status or of lower sonship is not in view. One must be viewed as a mature, full-grown son in order to receive the benefits of this kind of heirship.

matthew says:
Right

Antonio says:
And remember, their is an heirship qualified for simply by being a "teknon" (child, Ro 8:17). This is an heirship that is unconditional. But there is another heirship that is merited by adherence to the demands or wishes of the benefactor. So thus two nuances included in the one idea of "eternal life". The Jews of Jesus' time seemingly only privy to one.

matthew says:
Two kinds of heirship?

Antonio says:
One merited and one unconditional. By virtue of being a teknon (child), one is heir to resurrection to life, only to name one benefit of this unconditional heirship.

matthew says:
That makes a lot of sense.

Antonio says:
I wish that I had an editor. I dare say that I have no time nor inclination to edit my own writings into a book form. I surely have enough material to make several book on several topics

matthew says:
You should write a journal article.

Antonio says:
I really liked one of my latest but simple articles, "however much or little they may know" or something similar to that title. You did not comment however.

matthew says:
It was very good.

Antonio says:
Imagine being persuaded by the simple testimony of an adulerterous and immoral woman who merely stated "He told me all things I ever did" and "Could this be the Christ" (obviously with the content that he offered water that once taken one would never thirst again) but still this is significant! On no other testimony than a sinful woman, many believe in Jesus (pisteou eis)! How more simple could it be?

matthew says:
Impressive


After this we talked about my second favorite subject after the bible and God: food...

I hope that this conversation has been beneficial for you.

Have a good day!

Free Grace Theology is a Great Concern of Mine

Free Grace theology is my passion! I am a staunch defender of it. I am a shameless and unapologetic advocate of it. I have been engrossed for years plumbing its depths in the Sacred Scriptures and in the writings of those who proclaim it. As such, I am saddened when my Free Grace brothers and sisters charge me with heresy. I share a rich theological heritage with these people! I enjoy the writings of Charles Ryrie, L.S. Chafer, John Walvoord, Tom Constable, Earl Racmacher, Charlie Bing, Dave Anderson, as well as Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, Joseph Dillow, Erich Sauer, and G.H. Lang. I don’t agree with everything each one of these men promotes. But I have learned great things from them and hold them in high esteem for the work they have done in the cause of Christ.

Recently, I decided to write Dr. Earl Radmacher and share with him some of my concerns.

What is your opinion on the dark cloud that a few fundamentalist free gracers sprouting from Duluth have hoisted upon the Free Grace world?

This is my opinion: Free Grace theology advocates share a rich heritage and common theology. There are some differences in opinion on how one is to do evangelism, but we all agree to the major theological tenets of evangelical and orthodox Christianity! It is most unfortunate that such discord is being propogated among the brethren!

Charges are being trumped up to such an extent that a legitmate nuance and position of Free Grace theology coming from Zane Hodges and the GES has been demonized as heresy!

I support Zane Hodges financially. I support the GES with my membership. I am a member of the FGA. I also espouse the particular position of Zane Hodges. I have a couple of blogs which I have written 200+ articles on Free Grace theology, many having to do with the nuanced position of the GES. Because of this, I have been stigmatized by some who consider themselves Free Grace as a heretic!

These people from Duluth have so poisoned the well with their innaccurate, pejorative, and Christ-dishonoring rhetoric, trumping up charges and demonizing people, that good people in Free Grace leadership, who know that Zane and the GES don't preach heresy, are afraid to publicly fellowship with them in fear that it may have (this is only my opinion) financial repercussions when donors and supporters, who have been poisoned against the GES, find out.

I was perusing the internet today and found some articles that Miles J. Stanford wrote "against" you. He discussed your correspondences with him that had to do with the Bema seat. You brought up names such as Chitwood, Lang, Wilson, and Govett. Now, I do not agree with all of these men in everything, certainly not on millenial exclusion, but they have (especially Lang) very scholastic and persuasive arguments concerning the Bema! I love reading these men. I am on board with you concerning the Bema. But men from Duluth and Middletown state that such considerations are heresy.

Furthermore, Brother Stegall in his articles speak against Zane's view of repentance which is found in an appendix of your book taken from a Bob Wilkin book!

You also quote Zane Hodges liberally in your book, esp pages 126-127, in which Zane is identifying the core consideration of what these Duluthians criticize: that salvation comes by believing that Jesus is the Christ, with the content that as the Christ He is the Guarantor of everlasting life to the believer in Him.

Please tell me what you think about all of this! I am so disheartened over all the politics! I have heard rumors that the Duluthian faction of the FG community has made threats and demands of the FGA executive committee.

I am an advocate of Free Grace Theology as I believe those from Duluth are. Why is it that we cannot coexist and why is it that Zane Hodges and the GES are being trumped up as heretics? Please advise. What do you think about all of this discord being instigated by a select small few sectarians?

The following day Dr. Earl Radmacher gave me a call and we talked about these things for almost 2 hours. His answers were a voice of reason and of studied and scholarly wisdom. He addressed all my concerns that I had written him and, furthermore, all that I verbally addressed him with. On the phone I asked for his permission to publish some of the statements that he made over the phone. He agreed. I was so thankful! I have talked to several key FG leaders who do not believe that the GES nor Zane Hodges teaches heresy, but who do not wish to come out publically to declare so. I believe that the are fearing the consequences of men rather than judging with righteous judgment in the sight of God. But not Dr. Earl Radmacher. He is fair and balanced and speaks the truth in love.

Within the next few days I will share with you all our conversation. Stay tuned.

Your Free Grace host,

Antonio da Rosa

'however little or much one may know about Him'

Trust, however, implies reliance, commitment, and confidence in the objects... that one is trusting. An element of commitment must be present in trusting Christ for salvation, but it is a commitment to Him, His promise, and His ability to give eternal life to those who believe. The object of faith or trust is the Lord Jesus Christ, however little or much one may know about Him. The issue about which we trust Him is His ability to forgive our sins and take us to heaven.

This quote is from Charles Ryrie in his book, “So Great Salvation” (on page 111-12 or 121, depending on which version you have) and it is agreeable to me. I would personally word things a bit differently than he does. I believe that Charles Ryrie has fallen into the trap of the two-step, supposing that "trust" is a superior word to "believe".

What makes saving faith saving, folks? It is not some extra element added to belief or assent that makes it "super faith". What makes saving faith saving is the object, the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Lord Jesus Christ has eternally inexhuastable riches and grace at His disposal. Furthermore, He is qualified and able to eternally save by virtue of His deity, death and resurrection. To add to this, He is willing to give eternal life to all who simply believe in Him.

When it comes to conversations in social settings, I tell people that the two subjects that I enjoy discussing the most are 1) things pertaining to God and the Bible and 2) food. My wife is the Executive Training Coordinator for a chain of gourmet seafood restaurants in San Diego where she is in charge of all the front-end training in their 12 restaurants. As an executive she gets 50% off her party’s bill. It doesn’t matter if it is we two or a group of 15, we get 50% off. I love that, let me tell you friends! I can have gourmet food at half the price! I can get a dozen oysters on the half shell for the price of 6. I am in hog heaven. But I digress. Anyway, on to an illustration.

Let us say that I was walking down the street and someone offered me a free gourmet meal at Tavern on the Green. If I were persuaded that this man could get me a free meal, and I had the time, I surely would take him up on his offer. Something about the man must convince me that he is telling the truth or I would not believe him. Let us say that he was standing out front of the restaurant called Tavern on the Green and what it was that persuaded me to believe in him, that he was authorized, able, and willing to give me a meal absolutely free, was the location where I found him and the clothing he was wearing. Let me explain. He was standing out in front of Tavern on the Green and was wearing a nice, crisp, dress shirt with the “Tavern on the Green” logo, and black, well creased dress slacks.

What persuaded me that this man could give me an absolutely free meal were his physical location and his attire. That is all! I didn’t know anything else about this person but that. But that was all that it took to persuade me that he was telling me the truth and could give me a free meal. I went in and enjoyed a free meal. I did come to find out later that this man was the owner of the restaurant, and some other pertinent facts about him.

Lets rework this illustration a bit. Let us now say that this man who was offering the free meal stated that he was the owner of the restaurant, up front, and explained (after showing his ownership credentials of some form or another) that the restaurant was celebrating its 25th year in business and that he wanted to grace several people with a free meal. I would know much more about this person that was offering this free gift. Still, I went in and had a wonderful time eating a free gourmet meal.

In both of these illustrations, I relied upon the man out front of the restaurant for the free gift he was offering, however little or much I may have known about him. Charles Ryrie states “The object of faith or trust is the Lord Jesus Christ, however little or much one may know about Him.” I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. When the lost read of Jesus in the gospel of John stating that He is the Guarantor of eternal life and resurrection to the believer, and believe in Him as such, Christ saves them, however little or much one may know about Him.

And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him (pisteuo eis) because of the word of the woman who testified, "He told me all that I ever did." – John 4:39 (NKJV)

Many of the Samaritans of Sychar “believed in” (pisteuw eis) Jesus based solely on the testimony of the immoral and adulterous woman, who stated, “Can this be the Christ?” and said, “He told me all that I ever did” (see Jn 4:29). They did not know much about Jesus, but the text clearly shows that they exercised saving faith, for it used John’s unique technical phraseology which denotes saving faith everywhere else in his gospel: pisteou eis.

In my first illustration, little did I know that the man offering the free gift of a gourmet meal was the owner of the restaurant. But I believed in him and got a free meal. It turns out that the reason that he was qualified to give such a wonderful gift was that he was the owner who was celebrating 25 years of ownership of that restaurant and was inclined to do something special for a few people.

The one who is uniquely identified as Jesus of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth, descending from the line of David, and hailing from the tribe of Judah:

1) is God in the flesh
2) died a substitutionary death on the cross for the sins of the world
3) rose again bodily from the dead

In addition to this, He performed great miracles, raised the dead, exercised compassion on the lost, preached good news, taught about God, never sinned, etc.

But Jesus also did something else. He solemnly testified to the fact that He gives life to whomever He wills (Jn 5:21). As such, He determined to give everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him (Jn 1:12; 3:15-16; 5:24; 6:35-40, 47; 11:25-26). Jesus has the words of eternal life (Jn 6:68)! He said, “The words that I speak to you are spirit and they are life!” (Jn 6:63).

Jesus makes the radical claim (!!):

“Most solemnly I assert to you, whoever believes in Me has everlasting life!” (Jn 6:47)

Jesus is no liar. He has the words of eternal life. His words are spirit and they are life. He has offered the world an absolutely free gift: eternal life, and has stipulated but one condition for its reception: believing in Him. He will never fail anyone who trusts in Him for that which He freely offers. Jesus can never fall short of His promise.

Whether I knew it or not, the man in my illustration was the owner of the restaurant. I believed him in his offer, took him up on it, and he made good. Jesus will always make good on His promise that whosoever believes in Him has eternal life and will be resurrected, “however little or much one may know about Him”.

Checklist Evangelism and Questions about Assurance

Updated and Revised: May 12, 2008 2:31 PM PST

Reformed Lordship Salvation and Assurance
For Reformed Theology and Lordship Salvation, assurance can never be certain because of where they look for it. The foundation for assurance in LS is threefold, two of which are totally subjective. These pillars, two of which are crumbling, are the word of God, perseverance in faith and works, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. The problem for assurance in Reformed Lordship Salvation has already been documented on this blog extensively. In a nutshell, because one's faith can fail, thus showing he is reprobate, having only exercised a spurious, non-saving faith, one's capacity for assurance can only come as he endures and perseveres in faith and good works, which are the inevitable signs of (and conditions for) eternal life, and ruminates upon their strength. What a roller-coaster of emotion this can generate, in that circumstances in one's life will invariably dictate the degree of one's assurance. Often, adherents to LS are found dangling over the pit of despair, wondering if they have spurious or genuine faith. Such was characteristically the case in the Puritans of time past.

Checklist Evangelism's Quest for Assurance of Salvation
But this post is not going to consider assurance from the perspective of Reformed Lordship Salvation. What I want to look closely at is one's search for assurance in the traditionalistic and inconsistent theology of the checklist evangelists. Many who consider themselves free grace (albeit inconsistently) state that assurance is the birthright of every Christian but that a Christian many not experience assurance the day of their spiritual birth. This, in and of itself, is grievous error, because assurance is of the essential nature of saving faith. Be that as it may, what I am concerned with here is ascertaining exactly where should this individual, who has been evangelized by a checklist evangelist, supposed to go in order to have assurance of their salvation for either the first time or later if he loses it?

These traditionalists will state, correctly, that assurance will only be founded upon the objective word of God (although not all of them will assert that this assurance is certainty, which understanding, too, is in error). But where must they turn to in the Bible in order to find this objective assurance of their eternal well-being?

We must understand that this is a very big problem for them. Let me tell you why. These traditionalists require that the lost become converts to their specific doctrinal statements or creeds as a condition, mandated by God, for eternal life. For example, one well known creedal statement required to be assented to for eternal life goes something like this: 1) Jesus is God, 2) Jesus is man, 3) Jesus died substitutionally for sins, 4) Jesus rose bodily from the dead, 5) Salvation is received by grace through trusting these facts. It must also be noted here that each one of these statements has a number of subpoints which give them context that must also be assented to in their minutia, or one will fail to fulfill their conditions, and the checklist evangelist will not consider such a one saved.

Questions illustrating the problem for checklist evangelists' quest for assurance:

If someone has been evangelized this way, where can he turn to in order to find assurance in the scriptures?

What passages will he have to string together? What exercises in logic will he have to employ?

What will be the steps to find assurance in the objective word of God?

Is there any clear passage or passages that shows for him all of the conditions that he must fulfill and that promises eternal life, justification, or eternal salvation upon actually fulfilling them?

Free Grace Theology, Saving Faith, and Assurance
Consistent Free Grace Theology understands that eternal life is received the moment that one simply places his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. There are no stipulations, provisos, codicils, or strings attached. When one believes in Jesus of Nazareth for eternal life he will never perish but has everlasting life. To substantiate this claim, Consistent Free Grace evangelists turn the lost to such passages as John 3:16, 5:24; 6:35-40, 47; 11:25-26. These passages show in a straightforward, unambiguous, and clear fashion that eternal life and the guarantee against perishing comes to the one who simply believes in Jesus.

But here is the thing. When someone evangelized by a Consistent Free Grace Theology advocate loses his or her assurance for whatever reason, the same scriptures that were introduced to him in evangelism are the same passages that he must turn to in order to find assurance! John 6:47 states, "Solemnly I assert to you, whoever believes in Me has everlasting life." "Believing in" someone is simply trust and reliance upon that person for something specific. In the context of the previously mentioned evangelistic verses, what Jesus is being trusted for and relied upon for is everlasting life. A person knows whether or not they believe Jesus when He solemnly asserts His gratuitous promise and guarantee. The moment that they look to Jesus in faith, who is the Guarantor of eternal life to the believer, they will again find perfect peace and certain assurance (they had it the moment the exercised saving faith, but that is another issue). Why? Because faith is simply being convinced that something is true. If they are convinced that Jesus is telling the truth in His promise then they know, certainly, that they have eternal life, because the possession of such is explicitly guaranteed in His promise. Furthermore, Jesus would be lying if eternal life didn't come simply by taking Him at His word, believing Him in His promise, trusting Him for what He offers, unconditionally, to the lost. [This is a problem, in and of itself, for checklist evangelists, because in a sense, they make Jesus a liar. Jesus makes a solemn assertion that anyone who simply trusts in Him has everlasting life. Checklist evangelists would have someone go to hell who sincerely trusted in Jesus for the gift He offers by faith, yet who was not privy or understanding of their supplemental additions to saving faith, their fundamentalist creeds that they impose on the Lost as God mandated conditions for receiving everlasting life.]

The Roadblocks to Assurance found in Checklist Evangelism
But what of the plight for assurance by the checklist evangelists and those who are evangelized by them? This is crucial to recognize: There is no passage written by Paul, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Jude, James, or the writer of the Hebrews, or any statements by Jesus (recorded for us in the Scriptures) that articulates that eternal life is guaranteed to the one who fulfills the many conditions imposed on the lost by these traditionalists. Where can he turn to for assurance? No scripture(s) line up with his evangelistic experience! If he has to turn to many passages in order to string together some weak support for what he has been told are God mandated requirements for eternal life, how will he be satisfied that he has found them all? Since there are so many conditions and they are never found all in one place, how is he to be sure that he has in reality found all of the doctrines and facts that he must assent to in order to have confidence that he has indeed fulfilled them and so certainly have assurance that he is saved? It is a slippery slope that can lead to great uncertainties.

I already hear some of the objections by the checklist evangelists. They may say that they can turn to passages such as John 3:16 for assurance. But here is the problem for them. John 3:16 states, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." This passage states unequivocally that "whoever believes in Him" is the one who shall never perish but has eternal life. Believing in someone is simply trusting in that person for something specific. In this context it is shown that what one is relying upon Jesus for by faith is eternal life and the guarantee that one will never perish.

But the checklist evangelists understand "believing in" Jesus to mean something much more complex than that. They believe it is assenting to a plethora of historical and doctrinal facts in addition to belief in Jesus. How can they use this verse for assurance when there is no clear affirmation anywhere in the Scriptures equating "believing in" (pisteuo eis) Jesus with the multitude of creedal assertions that they are convinced are required to be assented to by mandate of God for the express purpose of receiving everlasting life? How can they be sure that they haven't missed something that "believing in" Jesus may encompass? They cannot. There is no verse or passage that clearly identifies "believing in" Jesus with the assent to specific and enumerable doctrinal and historical facts. Furthermore, when Jesus pronounced His promises such as John 3:16 and 11:25-26, he was merely eliciting trust in Him for eternal well-being, not asking them to assent to a wide range of doctrinal facts!

Furthermore, if John 3:16 is sufficient to be singled out for assurance by a checklist evangelist, how is it insufficient as a statement denoting saving faith in his estimation? Such is the inconsistency of their position. John 3:16 does not enumerate for us all of the conditions for eternal life in the opinion of checklist evangelists.

For me, John 3:16 is a sufficient articulation of the single condition mandated by God for eternal life: "believ[ing] in" Jesus. Therefore it is a sufficient scripture to turn to in order to find assurance.

Illustration
If my mom wrote this to me, "I promise that if you send me your mortgage bill for this month that the day I receive it I will send in the payment" where can I get assurance that my mortgage payment was indeed paid for after having sent her the mortgage bill in the mail? Quite simply by doing this: reading the promise of my mom, knowing I fulfilled the condition for her explicit guarantee.

Conclusion
One can ONLY have assurance of the stated consequences of specific conditions if one knows those conditions and then fulfills them. In John 3:16, there is only the one condition given by Jesus (and thus by Consistent Free Grace advocates), faith in Him; there is no run-down of all the conditions that the checklist evangelists impose on the lost. Therefore, checklist evangelists cannot legitimately find assurance in that verse.

Where one finds the conditions for receiving everlasting life and then fulfills them will be the same place that he must look to for assurance. Unfortunately for checklist evangelists, there is no passage that conditions the reception of eternal life on the multitude of historical and doctrinal facts they impose on the lost. The quest for assurance by checklist evangelists and those whom they evangelize can only be described as a scavenger hunt where no one can win.

Dennis Rokser, Duluth Bible Church, and Incongruity

Recently, someone who attends Duluth Bible Church wrote to me with his/her concerns about some recent preaching from Dennis Rokser. He/she wrote these things:

I'm a believer who attends Duluth Bible Church, pastored by Dennis Rokser... I really feel the need to share and discuss some things. If you are willing to have such a dialogue, I'd be grateful. I've been observing your blog and others for some time and I've come to get a feeling for who has a spirit of grace, though I must say I'm undecided about where I stand on some of the doctrinal controversy.

The thing that prompted me to write to you is the proclamation of two recent messages at DBC by Dennis Rokser. They address specifically the issue of the [current controversy], and Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges are referenced and quoted extensively. Not only is the spirit of the messages caustic, I also have some problems with the content and conclusions.

----------

Antonio,

Thanks so much for responding. I'd really be appreciative if you could give me your feedback on the two recent messages. I think I see some things that are contradictory... I will tell you this. Prior to the whole [current controversial] fiasco, we at DBC were taught that the gospel is 1 Corinthians 15:3,4, but we were never before taught that there are exactly five things a person must believe to be saved (as outlined in the Grace Family Journal articles). In fact, I bet if you took a survey at the door at DBC, very few people would be able to name the five things that are supposedly essential to the salvation message.

I'm not claiming to have a handle on this whole issue... However, I'm as concerned (or more) about how it's being handled. I don't like the name calling, the caustic attitude, and the pride that goes along with being on the attack in this way.

First, I would like to say that this person will remain anonymous at his/her request. I do not wish there to be any consequences to this person for having the guts to investigate and question.

Next, I must note that I believe it to be shameful to use a pulpit to bully people into doctrinal conformity, as it seems to be the case at Duluth from this anonymous member's perspective. This person is not the first member of Duluth Bible Church to email me with concerns. In reality, I have had several members of this church email me about the goings on there.

In my writings, I have dealt with the arguments of that group of fundamentalists and traditionalists that require the lost to become faithful adherents to their creeds before they can simply rely on Jesus to be saved from condemnation. I believed that there really wasn't much more to say on this. Yet, recently, from this anonymous member of Duluth, I received this email describing for me a new line of argumentation coming from the doctrinal legalism and checklist evangelism of the Duluthian Antagonists, that I wish to comment on. Here this member of Duluth describes it:

Antonio,

I have one question. In the two recent messages, Dennis Rokser continually used the term 'incongruity' in his effort to show that the message preached must be the message believed. In other words, because the message was preached and believed, as indicated in several Scriptures, therefore all of the message must be mandatory.

This concept of 'no incongruity' is completely new in our church. Do you know where it comes from?

One of the first things you notice when reading sermons, messages, and discourses in the bible, is that it will only take you a matter of minutes to read them. I wish it were the case with some of the lectures that I have had to endure in school that they would only took a few minutes to listen to! From all experience and logic, we must conclude that these discourses transcribed for us are merely condensed versions of the actual event. The authors pick and choose what they wish to include, and take liberty in condensing the information for space sake, in line with their purposes and intentions in providing the material in the first place. Of course, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what remains for us is accurate and authoritative. But what must first be recognized is that many of these sermons recorded for us in the Bible (whether it be from Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc) are major truncations of the actual speaking engagement. The summarizations (or if you'd rather, truncations or condensations) that require but a few moments to read may have taken the actual speaker dozens of minutes through hours to verbally articulate!

The fundamentalists already have a hefty size checklist of creedal statements (along with their implicit sub-points that must be assented to in their minutia) that they require to be believed before the lost can have eternal life. Now it is being said that the entire messages that the apostles (how can we actually know all that they said in their evangelistic messages?!) and the checklist evangelists give in evangelistic settings must be believed in order to be saved! This could potentially include many more dozens of assertions and affirmations.

When I evangelize, I am trying to persuade the lost that Jesus Christ is authoritative, qualified, and uniquely able to dispense eternal life to all who simply believe in Him for it. I am prepared to discuss a wide range of things, from very simple affirmations, to very complex doctrinal considerations.

I don't expect the lost to believe every thing that I say to them concerning the bible, God, or Jesus Nor would I ever imagine to require that they believed everything I say. Some things concerning Jesus and soteriology are not the milk of the word, but the meat, and therefore may be doubted by the lost, who are not trained to digest such. Yet I will include anything that I think is helpful, tailored to the individual I am addressing.

To require that one believe everything that is said in an evangelistic message spawns a world of problems and confusions. Furthermore, it is simply bad logic to conclude that because men and women are described for us in the bible as having believed a message that was spoken that the assent to the entire message is an actual theological requirement from the perspective of God, mandated from God, for the reception of everlasting life. It is simply non-sequitor.

To this anonymous member of Duluth, I wrote back:

Let us say that you were a juror in a court of law, and in the course of all the testimony, because of the star witness, you were persuaded that the defendant was indeed guilty. Yet, it is not precluded that you may not be convinced of everything that the witness said. You very well could disbelieve or doubt many things that she said. But if something(s) she said convinced you that the defendant was guilty, then you would have to send in your verdict of guilty, regardless of those items that you doubted (in other words, disbelieved). So, in a sense, you believed and were convinced the defendant was guilty in spite of some of the testimony that you couldn't believe.

Let us say that I said many things about Jesus in an evangelism setting. I really want to talk about Jesus, and answer all the lost's questions. Why? I am trying to persuade them that Jesus is authorized, able, and willing to guarantee their eternal destiny by faith in Him alone.

But let us say that in the course of this conversation that I had with a lost person, that some of the things that I said he had doubts about, in other words, did not believe. But what if I came to the part where I said John 3:16 or John 5:24, or John 6:35-40 or John 6:47 or John 11:25-26 and at that point the lost person believed in Jesus for the everlasting life that He alone offers in those verses.

This lost person has believed in Jesus even though he may doubt some of the things that I said.

But when this person places all of his trust in Jesus for the gift that only He offers, he will be born again and have the Spirit of God. In time, with prayer, the word of God, and the Holy Spirit, all of this person's doubts can be cleared up.

But one thing is for sure, a man can place all of his trust into Jesus for everlasting life and not believe everything that he has heard about Him! Some things are the meat of the word that are difficult to understand!

The anonymous member of Duluth wrote this in response, showing me he/she understood what I was saying:

I see what you are saying in your response. Just because something is included in a message doesn't mean it's part of the essential core of the message, right? Otherwise, we'd have to take every doctrine or truth that is part of every message/sermon/passage on salvation and make all of them mandatory. That doesn't make sense. If Paul touched on creation in one of his sermons in Acts, that was for his intended audience and not a universal required element of the message. Am I on the right track here?

The thrust of the two recent messages and the 'no incongruency' theme seemed to me to be saying that because Paul preached something, it's an essential element of the message of salvation. I think that's what is meant by 'There is no incongruency between the message preached and the message believed." But taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean that everything that Paul preached or wrote about in salvation passages must be part of the essential message.

I was very pleased to read this from the member of Duluth. It meant that he/she is investigating, questioning, and thinking these things through. Yet, at the same time, I am concerned by what the members of Duluth are being spoon-fed. From some of the correspondences that I have had with members of Duluth, I get the unmistakable impression that strong consequences are in store for those who question the teaching from that fundamentalist pulpit.

In conclusion, I wish to state that the incongruity lies not in the fact that Free Grace theology does not require the lost to assent to everything that is preached in an evangelistic message. The incongruity lies between the requirements that these fundamentalist traditionalists impose on the lost and the promise of eternal life by the Lord Jesus Christ: "Most assuredly I say to you, whoever believes in Me has everlasting life" (Jn 6:47). This incongruity creates a large divide between the way that these traditionalists evangelize and the way Jesus Christ did.