Chapter 2

Theological and Theoretical Foundations

Introduction

It is critical that we rely on sound theology when we discuss any area of biblical truth.

There are numerous exhortations in the Bible encouraging the believer to study, interpret, and apply sound teaching. Paul tells Timothy, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.”1 Paul commands Titus, “But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.”2

How does one arrive at “sound doctrine?” Sound doctrine is founded on correct interpretation of biblical texts that relate to the subject at hand. The art of interpretation is called

“hermeneutics.” Hermeneutics is defined as the “…science and art of biblical interpretation.

Interpretation is a science because there are laws that guide it. It is an art because the laws must be applied skillfully.”3 Part of the problem is that we cannot live in the language and culture in which the Scriptures were written. Grant Hawley writes,

There is a gap between what God communicated as written in Scripture and our understanding of it when we read it. That gap comes from over two thousand years between the time it was written and today, a wide divergence in culture, differences in language, our own preconceptions, our desires, and our own failures to observe all of the relevant information… Practicing good hermeneutics is how we let the text speak.4

1 2 Tim 3:16.

2 Titus 2:1.

3 Grant Hawley, The Guts of Grace (Allen, TX: Bold Grace Ministries, 2013), 17.

4 Grant Hawley and Jeremy Edmonson, Let the Text Speak: An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Allen, TX: Bold Grace Ministries, 2015), 1.

16

17

Several theological systems have arisen over the course of church history that, although claiming a sound biblical hermeneutic, nevertheless disagree sharply when it comes to the understanding of justification by faith and how justification relates to discipleship. In

Protestant Theology, two major systems emerged from the Reformation: Calvinism, often called Reformed Theology, and Arminianism. How these two theological systems understand discipleship compared with the Free Grace understanding of discipleship is a major focus of this chapter. Another way of phrasing the question is, “How does justification relate to discipleship?” Are they synonyms, that is, are a believer and a disciple the same thing? Can a person be a believer and not follow Christ in discipleship? Reformed theologian Alan

Stanley, speaking about the distinction between being a Christian and being a disciple, writes, “The NT, in my opinion, teaches no such distinction. In other words there are not two categories of relationship to Jesus.”5 Arminian theologian Robert Shank agrees when he writes, “We cannot accept Christ as Savior apart from a definite change of mind, heart, and will involving the whole of life and all our affections and intentions. There must be full surrender to the lordship of Christ, a sincere acceptance of His yoke.”6 In other words, for both the Reformed and Arminian theologians quoted, discipleship is a necessary part of salvation, the two cannot be separated. In contrast, Free Grace theologian Charles Ryrie, in the Foreward to the book, The Hungry Inherit, writing about the distinction between salvation and discipleship, states, “No distinction is more vital to theology, more basic to a correct understanding of the New Testament, or more relevant to every believer’s life and

5 Alan P. Stanley, Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works?: The Role of Works in Salvation in the Synoptic Gospels (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2006), 330.

6 Robert Shank, Life in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Perseverance (Springfield, MO: Westcott Publishers, 1973), 17.

18 witness.”7

Understanding the content of the gospel and what the Bible teaches is the individual’s response to the gospel, is a major theological theme relating to discipleship. Each system teaches a specific “ordo salutis.” The “ordo salutis” is “…a Latin phrase meaning ‘order of salvation.’”8 Anderson notes, “This refers to either the temporal or logical sequence in which the various elements of salvation are imparted to the believer, from his calling to his glorification.”9 The ordo salutis of Reformed Theology, Arminian Theology, and Free Grace

Theology has significant implications for discipleship within each system. Reformed

Theology has tended to emphasize the ordo salutis to defend its understanding of God’s divine work in salvation. Reformed theologian L. Berkhof writes,

The ordo salutis describes the process by which the work of salvation, wrought in Christ, is subjectively realized in the hearts and lives of sinners. It aims at describing in their logical order, and also in their interrelations, the various movements of the Holy Spirit in the application of the work of redemption. The emphasis is not on what man does in appropriation of the grace of God but on what God does in applying it.10

Charles Ryrie notes, “In the Reformed statement of the ordo salutis, regeneration precedes faith, for, it is argued, a sinner must be given new life in order to be able to believe.”11

Berkouwer writes, “Theological study of the way of salvation, or ordo salutis, must, then, always revolve about the correlation between faith and justification…. It is so necessary to

7 Zane C. Hodges, The Hungry Inherit: Winning the Wealth of the World to Come (Chicago: Moody Press, 1973), 7.

8 Douglas Mangum, The Lexham Glossary of Theology (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).

9 David R. Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, 3rd ed. (The Woodlands, TX: Grace Theology Press, 2018), 111.

10 L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1938), 415–16.

11 Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide To Understanding Biblical Truth (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986), 326.

19 realize that the entire way of salvation is only meant to illuminate sola fide and sola gratia.”12

Based on the Reformed ordo salutis, Mark Snoeberger states, “The theological argument conclusively demands that regeneration precedes faith.”13 Before drawing theological conclusions on the effects of these theological systems on discipleship, the ordo salutis of each system needs to be explored in greater detail.

As mentioned earlier, systems of interpretation and their biblical philosophy of history also influence discipleship. A biblical philosophy of history deals with the issue of meaning and “…offers a systematic interpretation of history. It covers the entire scope of history…including the what and why of the future.”14 Showers lists six necessary elements of a biblical philosophy of history:

First it must contain an ultimate purpose or goal for history toward the fulfillment of which all history moves. Second, it must recognize distinctions or things that differ in history…third…it must have a proper concept of the progress of revelation…fourth…it must have a unifying principle which ties the distinctions and the progressive stages of revelation together and directs them toward the fulfillment of the purpose of history…Fifth, it must give a valid explanation of why things have happened the way they have, why things are the way they are today, and where things are going in the future…Sixth, it must offer appropriate answers to man’s three basic questions: Where have we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going?15

Since the time of the Reformation, two primary systems have emerged that try to outline a biblical philosophy of history. They have developed into what we now call

12 G. C. Berkhouwer, Faith and Justification: His Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1954), 33. Sola fide is Latin for “faith alone” and sola gratia is Latin for “grace alone.”

13 Mark A. Snoeberger. “The Logical Priority of Regeneration to Saving Faith in a Theological Ordo Salutis,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 7, (September 2002): 93, accessed October 4, 2017, www.dbts.edu/ Journal.

14 Renald E. Showers, There Really Is A Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, NJ: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990), 2.

15 Ibid., 2–6.

20

Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology. The judgment seat of Christ, the great white throne judgment, the future of Israel as related to the church, the meaning of the millennium, and the understanding of eternal rewards are some of the areas these two interpretive systems interpret differently. Does a person stand before the great white throne and incur judgment on his or her works in order to gain eternal life or is there a separate judgment for believers called the judgment seat of Christ? The implications of these two views on the presentation of the gospel and discipleship is significant. We will begin by now investigating the major tenants of Reformed Theology, Arminian Theology and Free Grace

Theology and how they differ.

An Overview of Reformed Theology

The Logic of TULIP

Reformed Theology, also known as Calvinism, is a theological system built upon logic. Reformed Theology elevates God’s sovereignty above all of His other attributes, and their system has come to be defined by the acronym TULIP, which stands for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. As a theological system, all five points of TULIP stand or fall together. Calvinist

Loraine Boettner makes this very clear when he writes:

These are not isolated and independent doctrines but are so inter-related that they form a simple, harmonious, self-consistent system; and the way in which they fit together as component parts of a well-ordered whole has won the admiration of thinking men of all creeds. Prove any one of them true and all the others will follow as logical and necessary parts of the system. Prove any one of them false and the whole system must be abandoned. They are found to dovetail perfectly one into the other. They are so many links in the great chain of causes, and not one of them can be taken away without marring and subverting the whole Gospel plan of salvation

21

through Christ.16

Anderson notes, “The Reformers capitalized on both revelation and reason. Following the lead of Augustine, they combined the revelation of Scripture with the reason of the Greek philosophers, namely Plato and Aristotle….In search of Augustine’s elect, the Reformers refined the doctrine of double predestination with the syllogistic reasoning and causality of

Aristotle.”17 Calvinism is a theological system based on human logic and the elevation of one of God’s attributes over His others. Once the system is established, then Scripture is read through the glasses of determinism and made to fit the teachings of TULIP. Calvinists believe their system is greater than all others and appear to take great pride in the system itself. Boettner writes:

Calvinistic Theology is the greatest subject that has ever exercised the mind of man. Its very starting point is a profound apprehension of the exaltation and perfection of God. With its sublime doctrines of God’s sovereign grace, power, and glory, it rises to far greater heights than does any other system… It is a subject which has challenged the intellects of all the great thinkers in earnest times, and there is little wonder that we are told that these are things which angels desire to look into. To pass from other systems to this one is like passing from the mouth of a river and launching out on the mighty ocean. We leave the shallows behind and feel ourselves out on the great broad deep.18

This is a not-so-subtle way of saying that Calvinistic theology is better than all others and that only the Calvinist understands the “deep” things of God while others are simply in

“shallow” water. However, many question elevating systematic theology over biblical theology. Leighton Flowers writes, “While the logic of this sounds plausible, we must

16 Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 7th ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing CO, 1951), 59.

17 Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, 401.

18 Boettner, Reformed Doctrine, 335–36.

22 recognize the limitations inherent within such finite observations… How do we measure

God’s infinite ways and dogmatically assume a causal link between what is known in eternity and what happens temporally?”19 The point is, Reformed, Calvinistic theology begins with

God pre-determining everything and being the sole and final cause of everything that happens in His creation. This leads to a problem that Calvinists have great difficulty resolving: the source of evil. Concerning evil, Flowers writes,

John Calvin forthrightly reveals where his own systematic leads: ‘Satan and all the wicked are so under the hand and authority of God, that He directs their malice to whatever end He pleases, and employs their iniquities to execute His judgments… How foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission… It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them….’20

Boettner states, “We readily admit that the existence of sin in a universe which is under the control of a God who is infinite in His wisdom, power, holiness, and justice, is an inscrutable mystery which we in our present state of knowledge cannot fully explain.”21 However, that does not keep some Calvinists from offering explanations. Arthur Pink writes,

God’s will of decree is not His will in the same sense as His will of command is. Therefore, there is no difficulty in supposing that one may be contrary to the other. His will, in both senses, is His inclination… He decreed the entrance of sin into His universe, though His own holy nature hates all sin with infinite abhorrence, yet, because it is one of the means by which His appointed end is to be reached He suffered it to enter.22

19 Leighton C. Flowers, The Potter's Promise: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology (Evansville, IN: Trinity Academic Press, 2017), 40.

20 Flowers, Potter’s Promise, 41. Flowers quotes from John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God. Italics in original.

21 Boettner, Reformed Doctrine, 228.

22 Arthur Walkington Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Blacksburg, VA.: Wilder, 2008), 197.

23

It appears, according to Pink, that God has conflicting wills that are contrary and yet he

“suffers” sin because that is the only way He can bring about His appointed plan. Obviously,

Calvinists go to great extremes to excuse God from being the author of evil and yet at the same time demand that He must be the author of evil. Is this the picture of God we see in the

Bible? James states in Jas 1:13, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by

God,’ for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” John writes in 1 John 1:5, “And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.”

For Calvinists the logic of TULIP is tightly bound around the sovereignty of God.

However, it is fraught with problems that are contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture. One must, of necessity, wade out into theologically deep water and logic to reconcile the

Reformed system with biblical theology. As Reformed Theology leans heavily on what is called “the order of salvation” or the ordo salutis, we need to investigate the Reformed teaching on this subject.

The Ordo Salutis in Reformed Theology

Van Oudtshoorn states, “The ordo salutis directly impacts on the way in which a large segment of Christians appropriate the message of salvation and communicate it to the world.”23 For Reformed theologians, the development of the ordo salutis was a means of defending their view of God’s sovereignty and His sovereign grace. Berkouwer writes, “It appears to us…that the critics of the ordo salutis often fail to see that the motive behind it

23 Andre van Oudtshoorn. “SOLUS, SOLA: Constructing a Christocentric Faith Model of the ‘Ordo Salutis’,” Verbum Et Ecclesia 35, no.1 (January 2014): 2, accessed October 4, 2017, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4102/ve.v35i1.739

24 was the maintenance of the sovereignty of God’s grace. The origin of the ordo salutis was closely connected with a virulent defense of the Gospel.”24 Concerning total depravity,

Berkhof writes, “The inherent corruption extends to every part of man’s nature…there is no spiritual good…in relation to God in the sinner at all…. With respect to its effect on man’s spiritual powers, it is called total inability.”25 Echoing Berkhof, Steele and Thomas write, “As a result of this inborn corruption, the natural man is totally unable to do anything spiritually good; thus Calvinists speak of man’s ‘total inability’…the sinner is so spiritually bankrupt that he can do nothing pertaining to his salvation.”26 According to Calvinism, man is so spiritually dead that he cannot believe the gospel unless God first regenerates him. Therefore, a key component of the Reformed ordo salutis is that regeneration must precede faith in

Christ. Pink writes, “The new birth is solely the work of God the Spirit and man has no part or lot in it…No corpse can reanimate itself…Faith is not the cause of the new birth, but the consequence of it…for a dead man cannot believe anything.”27 R.C. Sproul writes, “No man has the power to raise himself from spiritual death. Divine assistance is needed and needed absolutely.”28 He continues, “Is regeneration a monergistic work of God, or is it a synergistic work that requires cooperation between man and God?”29 Sproul answers his own question

24 Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, 26.

25 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 247.

26 David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented, International Library of Philosophy and Theology: Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1963), 25, italics in original.

27 Pink, Sovereignty, 1.

28 R. C. Sproul, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1990), 102–03.

29 Ibid., 104

25 by stating, “It is probably true that the majority of professing Christians in the world today believe that the order of our salvation is this: Faith precedes regeneration. We are exhorted to choose to be born again. But telling a man to choose rebirth is like exhorting a corpse to choose resurrection. The exhortation falls upon deaf ears.”30 It is noteworthy that Sproul represents faith as something we choose to do rather than a simple response to the message of the gospel. In Reformed Theology, if man is capable of exercising faith, then somehow, he has added to God’s provision, therefore God must be the one who accomplishes everything, even giving the gift of faith. Steele and Thomas write, “This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the ‘five points’ are concerned to establish…namely, that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be the glory forever: amen.”31 Robert J. Kerrey writes, “A summary of the faith-after-regeneration view is this: because of the total depravity of humankind, God must regenerate a person first for that person to believe…People play no role whatsoever in regeneration.”32

As we have seen, total depravity, as defined by the Calvinist, means total inability and necessitates that God must regenerate a man before he can believe. The rest of TULIP logically flows from this understanding of total depravity. Election must be unconditional since God is the one who regenerates the sinner, and that can only be by His sovereign choice. Sproul writes, “Reformed Theology sees faith as the result of election. This is the

30 Sproul, Mystery of the Holy Spirit, 104.

31 Steele and Thomas, Five Points, 23.

32 Robert J. Kerrey, How Does God Draw People To Believe In Jesus?: A Biblical Analysis of Alternative Answers and Why It Matters (The Woodlands, TX: Grace Theology Press, 2019), 2–3.

26 fundamental difference between conditional election and unconditional election.”33

Furthermore, grace must be irresistible since God regenerates apart from the will of man. B. B. Warfield summarizes, “When rightly considered, Calvinism, with its doctrines of election and irresistible grace, is the only system which can make credible the salvation of any sinner since in these doctrines alone are embodied in its purity the evangelical principles that salvation is from God alone and from him only in the immediate working of his grace.”34

The final two points of TULIP flow logically from the others. If God chooses a particular group, the elect, to save, then Christ’s death on the cross was only for that particular group. It is inconceivable to the Calvinist that Christ would shed His blood for those He never intended to save. Warfield states clearly,

Calvinism insists that the saving operations of God are directed in every case immediately to the individuals who are saved. Particularism in the processes of salvation becomes thus the mark of Calvinism…God the Lord, in his saving operations, deals not generally with mankind at large, but particularly with the individuals who are actually saved…. The denial of particularism is constructively the denial of the immediacy of saving grace, that is, of evangelicalism, and of the supernaturalism of salvation, that is, of Christianity itself. It is logically the total rejection of Christianity.35

The final point, perseverance of the saints, is necessary in the system. If God is the

One who elects, regenerates, and calls, then He will certainly protect and take His elect ones on to glorification. Logically, perseverance of the saints, as defined in Calvinism, means that every true believer will grow in his sanctification and exhibit the fruits of perseverance. In other words, a true believer will be a committed disciple for his entire life. The problem

33 R. C. Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology? Understanding the Basics, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2016), 170.

34 B. B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Lexington, KY: Bowker, 2017), 50.

35 Ibid., 63.

27 arises when a professed Christian does not continue to grow in the faith or back-slides in his

Christian life. For the Calvinist, it is impossible that one who is elect, called, justified, and sanctified will not continue to grow and exhibit fruit throughout his life. Anderson presents the following as representative of the Reformed ordo salutis:

1. Election. God chose some to receive eternal life from eternity past irrespective of His prior knowledge that they would choose to receive Christ. 2. Calling. This calling is irresistible…. 3. Regeneration. This is accomplished by the Holy Spirit apart from any activity of man. 4. Repentance. Through the power of the Holy Spirit within them, the regenerate turns away from all sin. 5. Faith. The regenerate now makes a personal decision to receive Christ as Savior and Lord of their lives. 6. Justification. The new believer is now declared righteous in the courtroom of heaven. 7. Sanctification. The justified person now begins the process of being made holy by the Holy Spirit. Though there are ups and downs, the ‘trend line’ is always up. 8. Preservation. Because it is God’s power which preserves the elect, they cannot fall away from the faith. Therefore, the saints persevere until the end of their lives. 9. Glorification. When Christ returns, the elect are permanently rid of all aspects of the Fall; that is, they are glorified.36

Anderson reflects:

What difference does this order make? Primarily, it is an issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Those heavy on sovereignty want to take man right out of the picture. So God does everything to shape the pitiful lump of clay into the image of His Son to the point that the clay has no mind, emotion, or will in the matter whatsoever. To say he does, would be to undermine the doctrine of divine sovereignty.37

However, many outside the Reformed camp have trouble with the idea that God eternally condemns men for not believing but at the same time has chosen not to give them the ability to believe. Yet, according to Reformed Theology, the ordo salutis demands that

36 Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, 121–22.

37 Ibid., 124.

28 faith be given to a person before he or she can exercise that faith. That in essence takes man completely out of the picture and makes God’s divine election the sole basis for salvation. Do the scriptures actually teach regeneration before faith?

Regeneration Before Faith

One of the key pillars of Reformed Theology is the axiom “faith precedes regeneration.” Boettner puts it succinctly, “A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved.”38 Steele and Thomas write, “The salvation which

Christ earned for His people includes everything involved in bringing them into a right relationship with God, including the gifts of faith and repentance… Redemption, therefore was designed to bring to pass God’s purpose of election.”39 Pink states, “The new birth is solely the work of God the Spirit and man has no part or lot in it… It is supposed that the

Holy Spirit quickens only those who believe. But this is to put the cart before the horse. Faith is not the cause of the new birth, but the consequence of it.”40 Sproul asks the question, “Do I cooperate with God’s grace before I am born again, or does the cooperation occur after I am born again?”41 He answers, “The step of regeneration by which a person is quickened to spiritual life, is the work of God and of God alone…telling a man to choose rebirth is like exhorting a corpse to choose resurrection. The exhortation falls on deaf ears.”42 Sproul

38 Boettner, Reformed Doctrine, 101.

39 Steele and Thomas, Five Points, 39.

40 Pink, Sovereignty of God, 57.

41 Sproul, Mystery of the Holy Spirit, 103.

42 Ibid., 104.

29 recognizes the importance of this ordo to Reformed Theology and writes, “In the

Reformation view, the work of regeneration is performed by God and by Him alone. The sinner is completely passive in receiving this action. Regeneration is an example of operative grace. Any cooperation we display toward God occurs only after the work of regeneration has been completed.”43 Sproul explains why this must be so when he writes, “If original sin involves moral inability, as Augustine and the magisterial Reformers insisted, then faith can occur only as the result of regeneration, and regeneration can occur only as a result of effectual or irresistible grace.”44 Of course, this takes the response of faith completely out of the hands of man and puts it solely in the hands of God. Arminian theologian F. Leroy

Forlines writes:

Calvinism insists that regeneration, which is irresistible grace, precedes saving faith. Regeneration makes the ‘yes’ answer of faith in Christ a guaranteed result. The ‘no’ answer is not an option for the person who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. In such a case, we are dealing with cause and effect. Regeneration is the cause. Faith is the effect….In Calvinism, it is impossible for a person to believe unless he or she is first regenerated.45

J. I. Packer agrees when he writes, “Regeneration is a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life, and conscious, intentional, active faith in Christ is its immediate fruit, not its immediate cause.”46 That man has absolutely nothing to do with his regeneration according to

43 Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology, 216.

44 Ibid., 227. Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Calvin are considered Magisterial Reformers because their reform movements were supported by magistrates or ruling authorities. There is also an emphasis on the authority of these teachers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterial_Reformation for more details of the Magisterial Reformation.

45 F. L. Forlines and J. M. Pinson, Classical Arminianism : A Theology of Salvation (Nashville: Randall House, 2011), 259–61.

46 J. I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1993), 158.

30

Reformed Theology is seen in Berkhof’s statement, “Regeneration takes place in the sphere of the sub-conscious, that is, outside the sphere of conscious attention, while the truth addresses itself to the consciousness of man.”47 In other words, man cannot respond to the truth of the gospel in his consciousness, unless he is first regenerated, or born again, in his sub-consciousness, by God’s elective grace. Anderson sums up the Reformed view:

Many of the Reformed persuasion are determined to preserve their view of the sovereignty of God at all costs….As this relates to their soteriology, they are careful to argue for the position that God does everything in man’s salvation (monergism) rather than including man in the process at any point (cooperation or synergism). Thus, it is very important in their system that regeneration precede repentance, faith, and justification….Again, so much of this ordo salutis is an effort to make sure man has no part whatsoever in his salvation. In order to insure this fact, regeneration as a sovereign and independent act of God in the individual must take place before repentance and faith. One is not regenerated because he believes; one believes because he has been regenerated.48

The Reformed position of regeneration preceding faith is difficult to defend exegetically. Ron Merryman writes, “NOWHERE in Scripture does regeneration precede personal faith in the Gospel. The opposite is the case always; personal faith in the Gospel

ALWAYS precedes regeneration. This fact is the death blow, the coup de grace, to

Calvinism’s Soteriology.”49 As an illustration of this point Merryman mentions Eph 1:13–14,

“In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of

His glory.” Merryman emphasizes the order, “You heard…You believed…You were sealed

47 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 474.

48 Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, 239–41.

49 Ron Merryman, Human Volition & Divine Sovereignty (Colorado Springs: Merryman Ministries, 2016), 113.

31 with the Holy Spirit…They had to hear the Gospel before they could believe it. Believing it brought regeneration and the sealing ministry of the Holy Spirit.”50 He continues, “The word belief in John’s writings is always in the Active Voice, meaning the subject does the believing: He or she is not given faith; they themselves are exercising faith in the salvific fact(s)….Calvin’s doctrine of soteriology is seriously flawed, and nowhere is that as evident as in his effort to make regeneration a necessary antecedent to personal faith in the Gospel.”51

Many Reformed theologians recognize the weakness of their exegetical position.

Snoeberger admits, “The placement of faith logically prior to regeneration within the ordo salutis has been a prominent if not dominant position among evangelicals since the inception of fundamentalism. And admittedly, a surface reading of some texts lends to this conclusion.”52 However, because Snoeberger does not believe non-Calvinists have given a defensible answer to the Reformed notion of spiritual deadness, he writes, “As such, their exegetical position, while formidable, stands incomplete… [therefore] placing regeneration logically prior to saving faith emerges as the better solution in establishing a theologically consistent ordo salutis.”53 This is another way of saying that there is no exegetical proof for the Reformed position, but it is theologically consistent with the Reformed ordo salutis, therefore, it must be correct. Some in the Reformed tradition appeal to Eph 2:8-9 as an exegetical proof that faith is the gift of God. The Apostle Paul writes, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of

50 Merryman, Human Volition, 113.

51 Ibid., 114.

52 Snoeberger, “Logical Priority,” 93.

53 Ibid.

32 works, that no one should boast.” Sproul writes, “Following Paul’s lead in Ephesians,

Reformed theology teaches that faith is a gift given to the elect.”54 Amazingly, Sproul then makes an incorrect statement about the Greek of this verse. He writes, “What is the antecedent for the word that: grace, saved, or faith? The rules of Greek syntax and grammar demand that the antecedent of that be the word faith. Paul is declaring what every Reformed person affirms, that faith is a gift from God.”55 However, this is simply not true.

Grammatically, faith cannot be the antecedent of that. The text reads:

τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι διὰ πίστεως καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ For by grace you are saved through faith and that not of

ὑμῶν θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον yourselves of God (is) the gift

In this verse the Greek word for that, τοῦτο, is neuter and cannot be referring to πίστεως

(faith) which is feminine or χάριτί (grace) which is also feminine. Baptist Greek scholar A.

T. Robertson, in his Grammar of the Greek New Testament, makes this statement about the gender of τοῦτο: “…οῦτοs agrees with its substantive in gender and number, whether predicate or attributive…. In Eph. 2:8… there is no reference to πίστεως in τοῦτο, but rather to the idea of salvation in the clause before.”56 Wuest writes, “The word ‘that’ is touto

(τουτο), ‘this,’ a demonstrative pronoun in the neuter gender. The Greek word ‘faith’ is feminine in gender and therefore touto (τουτο) could not refer to ‘faith.’ It refers to the

54 Sproul, What is Reformed Theology, 183.

55 Ibid.

56 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 704.

33 general idea of salvation in the immediate context.”57 However, MacArthur casts doubt on taking faith out of the equation. He writes, “The antecedent of that, it would seem, cannot be the word faith. The problem is, there is no clear antecedent in this passage. ‘That’ might refer to the act of believing, employing an antecedent that is not stated but understood. It is also possible that Paul had in mind the entire process – grace, faith, and salvation – as the gift of

God.” He goes on to conclude, “Faith is an integral part of the ‘gift’ his grace bestowed on us.”58 Both Robertson and Wuest, quoted above, disagree with MacArthur and cast significant doubt on his interpretation. Nevertheless, many Reformed theologians hang their hats on Eph 2:8 as the proof text for faith being a gift that must be given before a person can believe. In contrast, Gregory Sapaugh states,

Ephesians 2:8 is a magnificent statement concerning the eternal salvation which is graciously provided by God through the medium of faith in Jesus Christ. Faith is not a divine gift from God. Faith is a personal conviction which a person exercises when he or she encounters Jesus the Christ. The clear exhortation from Paul and the other NT writers is for people to believe. There is no biblical data to warrant the belief that faith itself is given by God. God provides the free gift of salvation on the basis of His grace. People must receive the free gift of salvation by means of faith. Such is the clear and distinct message of Eph 2:8.59

Another verse that some Reformed theologians have recently used to teach regeneration before faith is 1 John 5:1 where John writes, “Whoever believes that Jesus is the

Christ is born of God; and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.” Anderson writes, “In a recent paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society, John Piper, who is not a New Testament Greek scholar, is cited as saying that 1 John 5:1 is the clearest text in

57 Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 4:69.

58 MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, 188–89.

59 Gregory Sapaugh, “Is Faith a Gift? A study of Ephesians 2:8” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, 7, no. 12 (Spring 1994), 43.

34 the New Testament supporting the position that regeneration precedes faith.”60 Anderson continues, “The argument rides under a cover of a misinterpretation of Greek grammar, especially the meaning of the Greek perfect tense…but the proposal needs to be examined further in order to expose that the entire argument is based on a simple error in Greek grammar.”61 The basic argument is that because the verb “born” is in the perfect tense and the verb “believe” is in the present tense, then being “born” must occur before “believing.”

However, Anderson points out that the Greek participle ‘believe’ “…is an ‘articular’ participle which functions as an adjective and not as an adverb connected to the verb…Thus, as an adjectival participle describing the subject of the sentence (πᾶς), it does not in any way specify the results of the main verb or what the main verb causes.”62 Brian Abasciano writes,

“All things being equal, the grammar of the verse actually hints faintly that faith precedes regeneration…Yet one thing is certain: the grammar gives no positive support to the claim that the verse teaches that regeneration precedes faith.”63 Abasciano continues:

It is surprising that some scholars have made such a basic error regarding Greek grammar in this argument for regeneration preceding faith in 1 John 5:1. It gives the impression that, in the rush to find a proof text to support their own theological conviction, they have been less than cautious in handling the text…Piper’s assertion…about 1 John 5:1 being ‘the clearest text in the New Testament on the relationship between faith and the new birth’ is telling in this regard, offering little hope of finding any solid scriptural support for the doctrine of regeneration preceding

60 David R. Anderson, “Fellowship with the Father – 1 John,” in A Defense of Free Grace Theology: With Respect to Saving Faith, Perseverance, and Assurance, ed. Fred Chay (The Woodlands, TX: Grace Theology Press, 2017), 604. Piper’s quote is taken from Finally Alive: What Happens When We Are Born Again (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2009), 118.

61 Ibid., 604–05.

62 Ibid., 605–06.

63 Brian J. Abasciano, “Does Regeneration Precede Faith? The Use of 1 John 5:1 as a Proof Text.” Evangelical Quarterly 84, no. 4 (October 2012): 315, accessed March 18, 2020, http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=rlh&AN=82351419&site=ehost-live.

35

faith.64

As previously pointed out, the TULIP of Reformed Theology stands and falls as an interrelated system. If any of the five points can be shown to be biblically suspect then the whole system becomes suspect. The house of TULIP, built upon the premise of regeneration preceding faith, appears to be on a very shaky biblical foundation.

The Necessity of Perseverance

Perseverance of the saints, the fifth point of TULIP, has become a thorn in the flesh of the Reformed system. If God unconditionally elects and irresistibly calls, having only paid for the sin of the elect one, then it only stands to reason that such a person will persevere in holiness until the end of his life. Berkhof writes, “Perseverance may be defined as that continuous operation of the Holy Spirit in the believer, by which the work of divine grace that is begun in the heart, is continued and brought to completion. It is because God never forsakes His work that believers continue to stand to the very end.”65 Sproul agrees and states, “God’s decree is immutable. His sovereign purpose to save his elect from the foundation of the world is not frustrated by our weakness.”66 The problem is that many who profess belief in Christ do not persevere in holiness, and some do not continue to stand to the very end. The only option for the Calvinist, when this happens, is to declare that this person was not really one of the elect. Scripture passages such as Heb 6:4–6 must be interpreted as addressed to “false believers” or those who have “spurious faith,” even though the language

64 Abasciano, “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?,” 321.

65 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 546. Italics in original.

66 Sproul, What is Reformed Theology, 245.

36 of the text speaks of genuine believers and is used clearly in other passages of Scripture to refer to genuine believers. If continuing in the faith is the proof of “genuine faith” then no one can have assurance of salvation since he can never be certain he will continue in the faith until the end of his life. Sproul admits, “The doctrine of the assurance of salvation differs from the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, but it is closely related. The two doctrines may be distinguished from one another, but they can never be separated.”67 Sproul elaborates,

“All the elect are saved, so if we can be sure that we are elect, we can also be sure that we are saved. To what end does the apostle exhort us to make our election sure? ‘If you do these things,’ he says, ‘you will never stumble.’ What does this mean?... This question is not easy to answer… There is clearly a link between our assurance and our sanctification.”68 Boettner, favorably quoting B. B. Warfield, writes,

Good works become thus the mark and test of election, and when taken in the comprehensive sense…they are the only marks and tests of election. We can never know that we are elected of God to eternal life except by manifesting in our lives the fruits of election – faith and virtue, knowledge and temperance, patience and godliness, love of brethren… It is idle to seek assurance of election outside of holiness of life.69

If the Reformed position is true, and there are no progressive good works in one’s life, then one cannot have assurance of salvation. But sadly, even if there appears to be sanctification in one’s life, that person may only have “spurious faith” and thus still may not be truly saved. Any doctrine that looks to the works, or lack of works, of the believer as the basis of assurance, instead of the finished work of Christ, can never give true assurance of

67 Sproul, What is Reformed Theology, 231.

68 Ibid., 232–33.

69 Boettner, Reformed Doctrine, 309.

37 salvation.

An Overview of Arminian Theology

The theological system called Arminianism is named after the Dutch theologian

James Arminius. Vance writes, “Arminius was just as orthodox on the cardinal doctrines of the Christian Faith as any Calvinist, ancient or modern.”70 Vance continues, “It is to be remembered that the academy in Geneva where Arminius received his theological training was the very school founded by Calvin. Arminius studied under Beza, the successor of

Calvin.”71 While studying at Geneva under Beza, Arminius found himself in the middle of the predestination issue and was asked to refute a book written against Calvinism. Vance notes that during his preparations to refute the anti-Calvinist book, “Arminius underwent a theological transformation and became a convert to the very opinions which he had been requested to combat and refute.”72 Vance summarizes:

It is Arminius’ interpretation of predestination that is the crux of his argument with Calvin. Rather than applying predestination to unbelievers (as did Calvin), Arminius applied it only to believers…. Arminius summarized his views of predestination as “an eternal and gracious decree of God in Christ, by which He determines to justify and adopt believers, and to endow them with life eternal, but to condemn unbelievers and impenitent persons”…. Arminius reduces the controversy over Calvinism to two…questions: “Do we believe, because we have been elected?” or “Are we elected, because we believe?” This was the main issue in Arminius’ day; it was the main issue in the subsequent Calvinism-Arminianism debates; it remains the main issue in these same debates today.73

70 Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, rev. ed. (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, 1999), 126.

71 Ibid., 132.

72 Ibid., 134.

73 Ibid., 138.

38

Conditional Assurance

Because the Arminian believes a person can sever his relationship with Christ by unbelief, perseverance and assurance can never be guaranteed. However, the Arminian believer unlike the Calvinist, can know that he has eternal life at any given moment. Shank writes, “The important question arises, Is it possible to know whether we are actually persevering? Can we know whether salvation is a present reality, rather than a vain assumption? Thank God, Yes!”74 However, Shank is quick to add, “Objectively, the elect will persevere, and they who persevere are elect. Subjectively, the individual is elect only as he perseveres. This conclusion is inescapable, regardless of one’s definition of election.”75

Forlines writes,

We need to help people see that they are saved by Christ alone, on the condition of faith alone. They need to see that they are justified by the death and righteousness of Christ. They are justified by Christ’s righteousness, not their own. They need to understand that the only thing that would cause them to lose their salvation would be a deliberate choice to turn from Him. That is my doctrine. I have assurance of salvation. I do not live in fear of losing my salvation.76

So, while the Arminian may have assurance, he cannot be certain that he will not, somewhere down the line, give it up. He may have a “guarded” assurance, but ultimately to enter into heaven, he must persevere to the end. The ordo salutis of Rom 8:29–30 is trumped by the other warnings of Scripture, and thus the justified one is not guaranteed of glorification. Shank writes, “To assume that eternal glory is the inevitable terminus of ‘an unbreakable chain’ for everyone who once experiences saving grace is to ignore the explicit

74 Shank, Life in the Son, 301.

75 Ibid. Italics in original.

76 Forlines, Classical Arminianism, 350.

39 warnings, not only elsewhere in the Scriptures, but in the very passage before us.”77 For the

Arminian as for the Calvinist, sanctification must be inserted into the ordo salutis of Rom

8:29–30. Forlines writes, “Let it be said here that while there are clear distinctions between justification and sanctification, the Bible knows of no separation of the two. We cannot receive justification without receiving sanctification.”78 He continues, “Sanctification is always an accompaniment of justification, but it is not a condition or ground of justification.

It is simply that the salvation ‘package’ includes both, and the package cannot be broken to separate the two.”79 Forlines charges that to separate justification and sanctification “…opens the door to cheap easy-believism, which promises justification without sanctification – forgiveness without change. Such a view is not the gospel. It is another gospel.”80

The Ordo Salutis in Arminian Theology

Because of the importance of personal faith in salvation, faith becomes an essential element in the Arminian ordo salutis. Henshaw writes,

The main difference between the Arminian and Calvinist ordo concerns faith and regeneration. Strictly speaking, faith is not part of salvation in the Arminian ordo since it is the condition that is met prior to God’s act of saving. All that follows faith is salvation in the Arminian ordo while in the Calvinist ordo faith is the result of salvation in some sense. What follows is how I see the Arminian ordo salutis:

Prevenient grace Faith [Union with Christ] Justification

77 Shank, Life In The Son, 366.

78 Forlines, Classical Arminianism, 274. Italics in original.

79 Ibid., 275. Italics in original.

80 Ibid., 275.

40

Regeneration Sanctification Glorification81

Defining the Arminian concept of “prevenient grace,” Abasciano writes,

The term “prevenient” simply means “preceding.” Thus, “prevenient grace” refers to God’s grace that precedes salvation…. Prevenient grace is also sometimes called enabling grace or pre-regenerating grace. This is God’s unmerited favor toward totally depraved people, who are unworthy of God’s blessing and unable to seek God or trust in him in and of themselves.... It is the grace that, among other things, frees our wills to believe in Christ and his gospel.82

Man’s ability to respond to this “prevenient grace” is of major importance to Arminian

Theology. Forlines elaborates,

If descendants of Adam do not in some sense have freedom of will, they have lost their personhood. One of the factors involved in being a person is to have power of choice or the ability to will. The will can choose and act only to the extent that it is free. To deprive the will of freedom is to deprive it of being a will. I think the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism should be framed over whether fallen man is a functioning, personal being. Does he have a functioning mind, heart, and will?83

Forlines believes the real issue in the Calvinist-Arminian debate is the personhood of man. He continues:

In my opinion, it has been a mistake over the centuries to focus the conflict between Calvinists and Arminians on whether fallen or redeemed man has a free will. The real question is: Is fallen man a personal being, or is he sub-personal? (The same question can also be asked concerning redeemed man.) Does God deal with fallen man as a person? If He does, He deals with him as one who thinks, feels, and acts. To do otherwise undercuts the personhood of man…. God designed the relationship to be a relationship between personal beings. Human beings are personal beings by God’s design and were made for a personal relationship with a personal God.84

81 Ben Henshaw, “The Arminian and Calvinist Ordo Salutis: A Brief Comparative Study,” Society of Evangelical Arminians, accessed November 14, 2017, http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-arminian-and- calvinist-ordo-salutis-a-brief-comparative-study.

82 Brian Abasciano, “The FACTS of Salvation: A Summary of Arminian Theology/the Biblical Doctrines of Grace,” accessed November 14, 2017, http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/ 10/Abasciano.-The-FACTS-of-Salvation1.pdf

83 Forlines, Classical Arminianism, 20–21.

84 Ibid., 48–49.

41

For the Arminian, the Reformed ordo salutis, in which God elects in eternity past some men for eternal life and others for eternal damnation, destroys the person-hood of man and makes him a pawn in the hand of God. The Arminian understanding of election and predestination, which they do not include in their ordo salutis, is based upon union with

Christ. Concerning election, Henshaw writes, “We would become the elect of God upon our union with Christ (the Elect One) as we would come to share in His election through union and identification with Him. Faith joins us to Christ…and all the spiritual blessings that reside in Christ become the believer’s upon union with Him (Eph. 1:3-12).”85 Regarding predestination, Henshaw writes, “Predestination would have reference to the predetermined destiny of believers through union with Christ. Believers have been predestinated to ultimate adoption and conformity to the image of Christ (glorification). Predestination does not have reference to God’s predetermination of certain sinners to become believers and be ultimately saved.”86

Faith Before Regeneration

For the Arminian, it is imperative that man has the ability to respond to the gospel.

Total depravity in the Arminian system does not mean total inability. Their doctrine of

“prevenient grace” teaches that God draws all men through the convicting ministry of the

Holy Spirit and the preaching of the gospel. Instead of the “cause and effect” model of

Calvinism, Arminians believe in an “influence and response” model. Forlines writes, “In the influence and response model we can maintain a strong view of depravity and at the same

85 Henshaw, “The Arminian and Calvinist Ordo Salutis.”

86 Ibid.

42 time maintain the ordo salutis to be faith, justification, regeneration, and sanctification.”87

Commenting on Arminian Theology, Correia writes,

Because Arminians value the genuinely personal nature of the relationship between God and people, they believe that it is supremely important that the relationship not be forced in any way. Forcing a relationship sounds very emotionally abusive! To make the salvation relationship irresistible, Arminians believe, would violate the very nature of love and make God arbitrary if not monstrous by not bringing all people to saving faith. If there is no place for the free response of people then there is no good reason that all people are not saved. Hence, to Arminians, for God to unconditionally elect and irresistibly draw without doing so for everyone is an attack on the goodness and love of God.88

Because Arminians value the image of God in man and man’s person-hood, the idea of regeneration being given before faith, that is an election that is unconditional, destroys the person-hood of man. The Arminian ordo salutis begins with people exercising faith in response to the gospel and the Spirit’s call. Forlines writes, “Faith can be called a gift in the sense that it would not have been possible without divine aid. It is not a gift in the sense that it exists outside the person and is given to him, nor is it a gift in the sense that God believes for the person. The person himself does the believing by divine aid.”89 On this issue,

Arminians clearly have the support of Scripture as the sequence is repeatedly seen to be faith that results in regeneration.

The Necessity of Perseverance

Because Arminians see the exercise of faith as a free decision that each person is capable of making, they also see the possibility existing that a believer can stop believing.

87 Forlines, Classical Arminianism, 84.

88 John Correia, Refreshing Grace: God’s Will Our Will In Focus (Phoenix: Biblical Framework Press, 2012), 79.

89 Forlines, Classical Arminianism, 23.

43

Because God is good and desires genuine relationships, He gave libertarian freedom to man.

Correia notes, “This goodness and desire for genuine relationship, which leads to free will, means that the believer is left with the decision every day of whether to continue to trust

Christ and pursue the relationship. Every person chooses whether they are a Christian, and that decision can be renounced.”90 Arminian theologian Robert Shank writes, “Neither the

Father nor the Son can keep those who do not wish to accept the conditions under which they may be kept… The Scriptures declare that men are free to depart from God, and believers are solemnly warned against so doing (Heb. 3:12).”91 The idea that a genuine believer can renounce his faith is termed “apostasy.” Shank writes, “An apostate, according to New

Testament definition, is one who has severed his union with Christ by withdrawing from an actual saving relationship with Him.”92 For Arminians, if a true believer decides that he no longer believes in Christ, then the salvation he possesses will be lost. Shank states, “His faithfulness is no unconditional guarantee against the possibility or the consequences of our own apostasy.”93 Thus, for the Calvinist, the apostate never possessed eternal life, while for the Arminian, the apostate possessed life but lost it by no longer choosing to believe.

An Overview of Free Grace Theology

Free Grace Theology offers a mediate position. Most Free Grace theologians do not recognize the hard determinism of Calvinism and would agree with the Arminian position

90 Correia, Refreshing Grace, 84.

91 Shank, Life in the Son, 277.

92 Ibid., 158.

93 Ibid., 171.

44 that faith precedes regeneration. However, Free Grace theologians separate justification and sanctification and do not see sanctification as a test of eternal life. As a result, they conclude a believer may have full assurance based on his simple belief in the Person and work of Jesus

Christ.

Unconditional Assurance

If perseverance to the end of one’s life is the test of true election, then assurance of salvation is obviously very difficult. The issue becomes what one is depending on for assurance, either Jesus Christ or a changed life. MacArthur asserts, “Genuine assurance comes from seeing the Holy Spirit’s transforming work in one’s life, not from clinging to the memory of some experience.”94 To the contrary, the apostle Paul teaches in Rom 3–5 that we are justified the moment we believe:

Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (3:23); For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law (3:28); And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (4:3); Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (5:1); Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him (5:9).

It is difficult to see how one can experience peace with God if he is constantly looking at his life to prove he is really justified. Sproul claims, “The Reformed faith believes that we can have assurance not only of our present state of salvation, but also of our continuity in that state. This assurance for the future rests in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.”95

However, only a few paragraphs later, addressing those who do not persevere, Sproul writes,

“They are like the seed that fell in shallow soil and sprang up quickly, then withered and died

94 MacArthur, Gospel According to Jesus, 29.

95 Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology, 241.

45

(Matt. 13:5-6). The seed never really took root. They gave some outward signs of conversion, but their conversion was not genuine…Their faith was spurious from the beginning.”96 In essence, Sproul has destroyed any hope of true assurance since one may only have “spurious faith” and not truly be one of the elect. The only way for one to know for certain that his faith is not spurious is to persevere to the end of life. So the very doctrine that is supposed to give assurance, perseverance of the saints, becomes something the saint must do. For the

Arminian, assurance is directly related to how he is living his life. Shank writes,

It is sheer presumption for anyone to “know” he has eternal life who is not trusting in Christ with a sincere heart, keeping His word and commandments, walking as He walked, loving the Father and His will rather that the world, loving his fellow Christians, and practicing righteousness rather than sin. Anyone who presumes to have the inner witness of the Spirit under other circumstances is mistaken.97

With such a list, it is no wonder that so many lack assurance of their salvation. As noted previously, the difference between the Reformed view and the Arminian view is that in the former the person never possessed eternal life while in the latter he possessed it but lost eternal life. Forlines makes the Arminian view clear when he writes, “When a person is saved, he is baptized into Christ’s body; and as long as he is in Christ, he has eternal life and will never perish… If he is taken out, it will be an act of God the Father as husbandman…on the grounds of not abiding in Christ… We are lost, after we are once saved, only by turning from faith in Christ to unbelief.”98

Free Grace Theology grounds the believer’s assurance in the finished work of Christ and the promises of Scripture. Anderson writes, “The only essential ground for the assurance

96 Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology, 242–43.

97 Shank, Life In The Son, 303–04.

98 Forlines, Classical Arminianism, 351.

46 of the believer’s salvation is the promises of God. They are sure and firm. The experience of the believer can offer confirming evidence, but it is only secondary to the promises of God’s

Word and is nowhere taught in Scripture as the essential for assurance.”99 Dillow adds, “The only way to achieve the full assurance that the Scriptures promise is to ground it completely outside the believer’s subjective experience and emotions and to ground it objectively in the person and work of Christ.”100 The Free Grace message of assurance is often attacked by the lordship camp. MacArthur writes, “The good news of Christ has given way to the bad news of an insidious easy-believism that makes no moral demands on the lives of sinners.”101

However, MacArthur is creating a straw man, as no Free Grace theologian teaches that there are no moral demands on the life of those who believe in Christ. What the Free Grace theologian does teach is that one’s moral life is not the ultimate test of assurance. Anderson summarizes the Free Grace position:

What is being argued here is not whether a regenerate person should or should not have good fruit in his life. Obviously, he should have good fruit. But what is being argued is that fruit is not the ground of his assurance, and if a person ever looks to his persevering fruit as the ultimate ground of assurance, he can never have assurance. But we believe a person can have absolute assurance that he is born again the moment he believes. We can give him this assurance, not because of a change in his life which we can feel or see, but because we believe without doubt the promises of God which offer eternal life as a free gift to anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior from our sins.102

The passages that the lordship theologian uses to demand holiness of life for assurance are

99 Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, 223.

100 Joseph Dillow, “Finding Assurance,” in A Defense of Free Grace Theology: with Respect to Saving Faith, Perseverance, and Assurance, ed. Fred Chay (The Woodlands, TX: Grace Theology Press, 2017), 236.

101 MacArthur, Gospel According To Jesus, xxi.

102 Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, 227–28.

47 viewed differently by Free Grace theologians. Dillow summarizes:

According to the Free Grace understanding of the same passages, we look to our works to determine if we are in communion with God; to determine if we have a faith that is vital (that is, not dead); and to consider our lives in view of our final accountability at the Judgment Seat of Christ. For assurance of salvation we look to God’s promises in Christ as declared in his Word.103

In the conclusion of Romans chapter eight, Paul gives an exhaustive list of things that could never separate us from the love of God. Clearly, our assurance is based on His promise!

Anderson and Reitman observe, “‛Any other created thing’ includes me – not even I can separate myself. Nothing I can say or do can separate me from the love of God. Oh, He may well be disappointed in the child. But we must distinguish between acceptance and approval…Birth into a family is irreversible.”104

The Ordo Salutis in Free Grace Theology

In Free Grace Theology, the ordo salutis guarantees that the one who believes in

Jesus Christ is eternally saved and secure. Anderson writes,

For both the Arminians and the Calvinists, one must persevere faithfully until the end of his life or he does not go to heaven. The Arminians claim that the one who does not remain faithful loses his salvation, while the Calvinists claim that one who does not remain faithful, never had salvation. In either case, faithfulness until the end of one’s life is the ultimate litmus test for one to spend eternity with God. By making a faithful life a requirement for salvation, teachers of free grace claim that works have been appended to faith, turning God’s so great salvation into more of a bribe than a gift. It turns the Christian life into a “have to” life rather than a “thank you” life, which is often the difference between a job and a joy… Only through free grace theology can one legitimately have the assurance of one’s salvation in this life and the peace and joy which accompany such assurance.105

103 Dillow, “Finding Assurance,” 196.

104 David R. Anderson and James S. Reitman, Portraits of Righteousness: Free Grace Sanctification in Romans 5–8 (Lynchburg, VA: Liberty University Press, 2013), 232.

105 Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, xiii.

48

Free Grace Theology sees the unbroken chain in the ordo salutis of Romans 8:29-30 as strong proof of the believer’s eternal security but recognizes that progressive sanctification is not guaranteed. Dillow writes:

All those whom God foreknew would believe are predestined. Because God foreknew they would believe he calls them. All those who are predestined are called, and all those who are called are justified. This calling is an effectual calling. And all those who are justified will be glorified. This refers to the redemption of our bodies at the last day (Romans 8:23). The two-verse chain with its fivefold unbreakable links, “those whom…he also,” is a clear statement of the eternal security of the saints.106

Faith Before Regeneration

As we have previously shown, Calvinism stands on the axiom “regeneration precedes faith.” In Calvinism, God’s sovereignty must be protected at all costs. Zane Hodges notes, “If there is one thing five-point Calvinists hold with vigorous tenacity, it is the belief that there can be no human free will at all.”107 This belief necessitates that regeneration must precede faith in the Calvinistic system. Hodges continues, “It is part of the creed of the theological determinist that unsaved man cannot really be called upon to believe the Gospel, since he has no capacity to do so at all. It follows, then, that faith must be a divinely imparted gift which man receives only as a part of his conversion.”108 Condemnation, for the Calvinist, is simply because a person is not one of the elect, not because he does not believe. Hodges writes, “The non-elect, therefore are faced with the horrible reality that God has chosen not to regenerate them and that, therefore, they cannot believe even if they want to. Yet biblically the failure to

106 Joseph C. Dillow, Final Destiny: The Future Reign of the Servant Kings (Monument, CO: Paniym Group, 2012), 722.

107 Zane C. Hodges, “The New Puritanism – Part 3: Michael S. Horton: Holy War with Unholy Weapons,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 7, no. 12 (Spring 1994): 18.

108 Hodges, “New Puritanism,” 19.

49 believe is the basis of the condemnation of the unsaved, as John 3:17 declares…”109 In the

Bible men are commanded to believe and condemned for unbelief. Yet in Calvinism, man cannot believe unless he is first regenerated. Hodges summarizes the implications of this view when he writes,

What this amounts to is that God does not “directly” love anyone unless first He regenerates him or her, since “regeneration is the commencement of union.” In other words, God does not love the elect until they are regenerated, and He never loves the non-elect at all. This is hardly the God of love whom we meet in the Bible. The deity of the determinist creates human beings for whom He has no direct love, and who have no free will, and thus they are created solely for a destiny in everlasting torment. Christ’s death in no way affects them, and so they stand totally outside of any redemptive provision. Christ’s atoning work is limited to the elect. The non-elect are both unloved and doomed. The cruelty implicit in such a view is obvious to any observer outside of those who have been brought up in, or have bought into, this kind of theology.110

Geisler asserts, “Contrary to the claims of extreme Calvinists, there are no verses, properly understood, that teach regeneration as being prior to faith. Instead, it is the uniform pattern of Scripture to place faith logically prior to salvation as a condition of receiving it.”111

Hunt writes:

Taken at face value, the Bible’s clear language would compel any reader to conclude that God loves all, that God is genuinely striving to convince wicked men to repent and to accept His offer of salvation, that men have the capability of responding when drawn by the Holy Spirit and convicted of their guilt and need, and though all are drawn, some are convinced and willingly respond while others refuse.112

Hunt continues, “Confusion arises through failing to recognize the obvious distinction

109 Hodges, “New Puritanism,” 19.

110 Ibid.,” 20.

111 Norman L. Geisler, Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2010), 279.

112 Dave Hunt, What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God (Sisters, OR: Loyal Pub., 2002), 11.

50 between man’s inability to do anything for his salvation (which is biblical) and an alleged inability to believe the gospel (which is not biblical).”113 Robert Kerrey, in his book How

Does God Draw people to Believe in Jesus? states, “The plain and repeated teaching of

Scripture is that faith is a prior condition to receiving salvation from God in all its aspects, including regeneration.”114 Kerrey presents a Free Grace view that he labels “The

Nondeterministic Modified View.”115 Kerrey’s concluding evaluation is helpful. He writes,

Compared to other faith-before-regeneration views, the nondeterministic modified view of how God draws people to believe harmonizes the most biblical data and makes the fewest assumptions. The word “draws” (ἕλκω) as used in John 6:44 describes God drawing all people, not just the elect, in a non-physical, attractional, non-coercive, didactic way that can be received or rejected. And this is modeled clearly and beautifully in the Bread of Life discourse, where the Father draws through his Word, both inscripturated and incarnate; the Father draws through authenticating signs; the Father draws though progressive illumination; the Father draws through a clear and compelling presentation of the gospel from one person to another; and the Father draws through a prophetic glimpse of his Son lifted up on the cross. With the added influences of the Holy Spirit’s ministry of reproof, the creation which testifies to God’s existence, and the godly behavior of believers, we see a powerful constellation of light God uses to penetrate the darkness and draw people to believe in Jesus. This divine illumination is at the heart of the nondeterministic modified view. As presented in this research, it outshines the problems posed by the determinism of the alternative modified view which renders the general call to salvation meaningless and the goodness of God questionable. And it outshines the Arminian view which undermines Jesus’s ability to keep those the Father has given him and posits a strangely continuous view of regeneration connected to a prevenient grace freighted with unscriptural baggage.116

The Free Grace understanding of faith before regeneration causes significant problems for Reformed theology. Anderson writes, “If the Reformed view of regeneration is

113 Hunt, What Love Is This?, 121.

114 Kerrey, How Does God Draw People, 131.

115 Ibid., 6–8.

116 Kerry, How Does God Draw People, 206.

51 in error, then their view of Total Depravity is also off center. And if their view of Total

Depravity misses the mark, then the most ‘ingressed’ of all their doctrines is uprooted, and the tree falls.”117 The ordo salutis of Free Grace Theology follows the clear teaching of

Scripture that a person is born again, or regenerated, because he places his faith in Jesus

Christ.

Perseverance and The Nature of Faith

Two major issues emerge in relation to the understanding of a believer’s perseverance in the faith. First is the idea that good works are a necessary proof of regeneration. The second, which is related to the first, is the nature of faith. Must faith be continuous throughout the life of a believer before final salvation can be attained? As we have seen, both

Reformed and Arminian theologians would agree that good works as proof of justification, along with continued belief, are necessary for final salvation – entrance into heaven.

Commenting on 1 Cor 15:1-2 Bates writes,

Here, Paul emphasizes that salvation is a process (‘being saved’), not a once-for-all- time faith decision…He says that we are ‘being saved,’ but only if we hold fast to the gospel proclamation… As Paul indicates, failure to hold fast means that initial pistis has been given to no avail (eike) – that is , in a purposeless, empty fashion. This shows, as nearly all Christians agree, that perseverance in ‘faith’ is required for final salvation.118

This idea of looking to one’s fruit as a proof of salvation has been labeled “lordship salvation.” If a believer has truly believed in Jesus, then he must make Jesus his “Lord,” that is, he must live a committed life. Commenting on the roots of lordship salvation Anderson writes:

117 Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, 231.

118 Bates, Gospel Allegiance, 91–92.

52

We have traced this development of the claims of lordship salvationists to the roots planted…by Theodore Beza. Because of his…view of the divine decrees, he created the concept of limited atonement. That very doctrine led to his insistence that one look not to Christ for his assurance (because the professing believer might be reprobate and be looking to a Savior who did not die for him), but rather should look to the fruit of his own life. This kind of fruit inspection became the battle cry of the English Calvinists and their Puritan strain of Christianity. When coupled with the amillennial interpretation of verses like Matt 24:13, which says the elect must endure to the end in order to be saved, lordship salvationists insist that one be a fruit inspector until ‘his last gasp’ in order to be assured of his salvation.119

MacArthur champions this view when he writes, “The call to Calvary must be recognized for what it is: a call to discipleship under the lordship of Jesus Christ. To respond to that call is to become a believer. Anything less is simply unbelief.”120

The marriage of justification and sanctification in the Reformed ordo salutis simply does not allow for a true believer to fail in his Christian life. He may still sin and even go through a season of sin, but a shipwrecked faith can only mean he was never saved. It is noteworthy that Paul left sanctification out of the ordo salutis in Rom 8:29–30. Vance writes,

“It should be obvious…that there is a difference between the saints persevering in the faith and their being preserved in salvation by God…there are an abundance of proof texts to show that believers are preserved by God, there are none which affirm that believers will always or finally persevere in the faith.”121 The Free Grace theologian separates justification from some phases of sanctification. Vance notes:

The blurring of the different aspects of sanctification is another problem with lordship salvation. In the Bible sanctification is three-fold: positional (1 Cor. 6:11; Heb. 10:10), progressive (John 17:17; 1 Thess. 4:3), and future (Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2). The failure to distinguish these three aspects of sanctification contributes not only to

119 Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, 258.

120 MacArthur, Gospel According to Jesus, 36.

121 Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, 573–74.

53

lordship salvation, but to perfectionism as well. The sanctification necessary for the salvation of any Christian has already been attained.122

Believers are positionally sanctified the moment they believe, however, conditional, or practical sanctification is a life-long process. Many believers go on to grow and produce good fruit in their lives, however, some do not. Free Grace theologians believe the warnings in Scripture do not concern eternal life but the potential loss of blessing in this present life and loss of eternal rewards in the life to come. Vance states, “A Christian who fails to persevere can lose his joy, assurance, fellowship, rewards, and his life, but he cannot lose his salvation.”123 In other words, eternal salvation is free but discipleship is costly. The Bible gives numerous examples of people who are clearly believers who nevertheless do not persevere to the end of their lives. Solomon is a prime example. He is a man who was called and set apart by God (1 Chron 29:25), who knew and loved the Lord (1 Kings 3:3), and who was used of God to write three books of the Old Testament. Yet, even with all his wisdom,

Solomon turned away from the Lord in his old age (1 Kings 11:1–8). Hawley observes, “If there is even one genuine believer who does not persevere in faith and holiness, the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints is not true. The Bible has many examples.”124 Free Grace

Theology sees sanctification missing in the ordo salutis of Rom 8:29–30 for a reason: it is not automatic! Because of this fact, the ordo salutis becomes a strong indication of the security of the believer in that it is an unbreakable chain that is held by God.

The second issue that relates to perseverance is the nature of faith. Lordship

122 Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, 582.

123 Ibid., 577.

124 Hawley, The Guts of Grace, 163.

54 advocates, both Reformed and Arminian, believe that good works are a necessary component of true faith and that a believer must continue in faith to obtain final salvation. MacArthur writes, “A concept of faith not producing surrender of the will corrupts the message of salvation. Paul spoke of the gospel as something to be obeyed…Clearly the biblical concept of faith must lead to obedience… Obedience is the inevitable manifestation of true faith.”125

Because faith must lead to obedience, it becomes a test of salvation. MacArthur concludes,

“The direction of one’s life should reveal whether that person is a believer or an unbeliever.

There is no middle ground.”126 Bates charges that misunderstandings of faith have

“…obscured the Bible’s teaching about salvation.”127 He continues by suggesting

“…‛allegiance’ is the best, most holistic term we can use to describe faith (pistis) when speaking about a saving response to the gospel.”128 The problem is that terms such as allegiance, loyalty, or commitment clearly place eternal salvation back on the works that a person performs. Yet Paul clearly states that faith and works are impossible to reconcile, as they are, by definition, opposites. In Rom 4:4–5 Paul writes, “Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” Dillow observes:

If faith is apart from works of obedience (law), by what mental alchemy can one seriously argue that while faith is apart from works of obedience, faith itself includes works of obedience in its nature or essence! If faith plus works does not save, then

125 MacArthur, Gospel According to Jesus, 191.

126 Ibid., 194.

127 Bates, Gospel Allegiance, 61.

128 Ibid.

55

one cannot include obedience as a part of faith and then say faith alone saves when you mean that faith plus works saves!129

Dillow concludes, “Faith is believing, acceptance of the facts of the gospel, and reliance upon Christ for the forgiveness of sins…to import notions of obedience into the word ‘faith’ is contrary to the teaching of the apostle Paul.”130

Closely related to the redefinition of faith is the idea that faith must be continuous.

Stanley exemplifies this position when he writes, “If endurance is not present will one be saved in the end? The answer is clearly no…one must continue in their already existing relationship with God if they are to be finally saved, that is, to be admitted into heaven.”131

Shank writes, “It is obviously an error of the gravest sort to assume that a past experience of conversion makes one unconditionally secure and constitutes a guarantee of final salvation.”132 It is argued by these theologians that the use of the present tense of the verb “to believe” means that the belief must be continual. Concerning the meaning of the present tense, Edwin Ediger writes, “An issue of importance in John 3:16 is whether the present tense participle of the verb ‘believe’ (πιστεύω) is to be translated ‘keeps on believing,’ or whether it refers to an event that has a beginning and an end. Does this verse, and others where the verb ‘believe’ (πιστεύω) is in the present tense, mean that salvific faith must continue for it to be genuine?”133 Ediger explains, “In salvific contexts, with the present tense

129 Dillow, Final Destiny, 674.

130 Ibid., 675.

131 Stanley, Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works?, 248.

132 Shank, Life In The Son, 298.

133 Edwin Aaron Ediger, Faith in Jesus: What Does It Mean to Believe in Him? (Bloomington, IN: West Bow Press, 2012), 25.

56 of ‘believe’ (πιστεύω), lexical and contextual matters govern whether the meaning is continuous or punctiliar…The fact that the present tense is used when referring to Christians as ‘believers’ does not mean continuous belief is a requirement for salvation.”134 Chay and

Correia, after a careful study of the word πιστεύω used with the present tense, write, “It becomes clear that it is dangerous indeed to assume that the normative use of the word

πιστεύω is always continuous action, especially in light of the fact it cannot even be assumed that the present tense in general assumes continuous aspect.”135 Dillow writes,

The verses that promise heaven on the condition of belief simply do not logically imply that the real condition is that you continue in belief up to the end of life…Saving faith is the act of a single moment whereby all the benefits of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection suddenly become the irrevocable possession for the individual, per se, despite any and all eventualities.136

Free Grace theologians do not see the ordo salutis as a guarantee to the believer of a life of holiness and good works. They do, in contrast to most Reformed and Arminian theologians, see the ordo salutis as a strong statement of the eternal security of the saints. Because faith results in regeneration and justification at the moment of faith, the believer is declared righteous at that moment. A life of obedience and good works should follow, and should even be the norm, but nowhere is it a guarantee in the Scripture. The reality is that Scripture is full of admonitions to believers encouraging them to grow to maturity in the faith. If maturity and holiness were automatic and inevitable then these exhortations lose their force.

134 Ediger, Faith in Jesus, 27.

135 Fred W. Chay and John P. Correia, The Faith That Saves: The Nature of Faith in the New Testament (Haysville, NC: Schoettle Publishing Company, 2008), 52.

136 Dillow, Final Destiny, 382–83.

57

Implications on Discipleship

The question at hand is, “What are the implications for discipleship based on the gospel as presented by these three theologies?” The Greek word translated “gospel” is euangelion, which means “the good news.”137 In the New Testament it is the good news about Jesus Christ: His person and work. The theological issue explored to this point has to do with how discipleship fits into the definition of the gospel. Although both Reformed theologians and Arminian theologians believe that faith alone is the basis of eternal salvation, they both have redefined faith to include commitment, obedience, and perseverance in some form or fashion. Dean Inserra illustrates this when he writes, “The message remains: no saving faith exists apart from commitment to Jesus Christ and belief in His gospel.”138

Matthew Bates writes, “The gospel proper is not so much a story focused on ‘believing that

Jesus died for my sins’ or ‘trusting in Jesus’s righteousness alone’ as it is a power-releasing story about Jesus, the one who is now ruling as the allegiance-demanding Lord of heaven and earth.”139 He elaborates, “The offer of salvation is free, but it absolutely does come with strings attached. Obedient loyalty to the king is required as a condition of acceptance.”140

Stanley asks, “So did Jesus teach salvation by works? We have clearly seen that indeed He did.”141 He continues, “…it is probably more accurate to speak of works as the condition for

137 Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 412.

138 Inserra, Dean Inserra, The Unsaved Christian: Reaching Cultural Christianity with the Gospel (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2019), 18.

139 Matthew W. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, Baker Publishing Group, 2017), 44.

140 Ibid., 104.

141 Stanley, Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works, 333.

58 final salvation or entrance into the eschatological kingdom… By condition we mean that if

(post-conversion) works (e.g., endurance, love, mercy, forgiveness) are not present then final salvation will not be granted.”142 If these theologians are correct then no one can be assured of their salvation because they have no way of knowing if they will continue to the end of their lives in their “commitment” to Jesus Christ or if they have done enough of the proper quality of works. Yet an enduring commitment is demanded. Bates writes, “Our ongoing and future justification depends on the maintenance of our righteousness-union with Jesus the saving King.”143 Because believers trained in this system never know the absolute security of their eternal salvation, discipleship becomes a necessary element for proving that they are true believers.

In sharp contrast, Charles Bing writes, “The freedom that grace brings is the fertile soil for spiritual growth. Fear causes us to live protectively and anxiously. There’s a big difference between the attitude of a slave and that of a son.”144 Indeed, security in a relationship is the foundation upon which that relationship is built. Bing reflects:

It’s a tragedy that so many Christians suffer the consequences of no assurance. They cannot go forward, because they’re always looking backward, wondering if they were really saved. Their witness is timed because they don’t really believe God’s promise themselves. Their ministry is constantly undermined by a shaky foundation of uncertainty.145

It is interesting that in many ways Calvinism and Arminianism end up in the same

142 Stanley, Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works, 334.

143 Bates, Salvation by Allegiance, 191.

144 Charles C. Bing, Simply by Grace: An Introduction to God’s Life-Changing Gift (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009), 134.

145 Bing, Simply By Grace, 78.

59 spot when it comes to discipleship. Discipleship becomes a test to prove whether or not a person is justified. For the Calvinist, one who fails to persevere must not, by the logic of the system, be a true believer. Arminian Theology rejects the hard determinism of Reformed

Theology, and faith is properly seen to occur before regeneration, yet there is no guarantee that faith will continue to the end of one’s life. Like the Calvinist, the Arminian must look to the continuance of good works and holiness in the life of the believer as the test of eternal security. For both groups assurance depends upon looking at the life of the believer for proper fruit.

In contrast to both Reformed and Arminian Theology, Free Grace Theology teaches that faith is not understood to be a work but simply a response to the gospel that every person is capable of exercising. When Christ is presented through the preaching of God’s Word and a person is drawn by the Holy Spirit, he may believe the message or reject the message. The order is faith, then regeneration. Justification also occurs the moment one believes, eternal life is given as a gift, and the believer is secure forever in his relationship with God.

Progressive sanctification is viewed as a normal and desired process in the life of a believer but not an automatic process. There is the possibility that a true believer may not grow to maturity and may, sadly, drift away and become shipwrecked in his faith. However, the security of the believer is seen in the unbroken chain of the ordo salutis. Everyone whom

God foreknew is predestined, called, justified, and glorified. Most Free Grace theologians understand foreknowledge as knowledge beforehand, based on God’s omniscience, of those who will put their faith in Christ, and not as a synonym for unconditional election.

Predestination is not pre-choosing some to heaven or hell but rather, the pre-appointment of those who believe in Christ, to be conformed to His image. The call is not referring to an

60 irresistible call but simply the call of everyone by the gospel and the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit. Many respond in faith, but many do not. Justification is seen as occurring the moment one believes in Christ. He is declared positionally righteous before God because of the finished work of Christ. The justified one can never become “un-justified.” He is secure in his relationship to God forever.

Free Grace theologians do not insert sanctification into the ordo salutis. While every other link in the chain is certain from God’s perspective, progressive sanctification is not.

God has provided everything a person needs to grow, including the Word, the Holy Spirit, and the encouragement of other believers. However, God does not force discipleship upon

His children as a condition for eternal life. We must choose to grow up in Him. Free Grace

Theology believes this to be the reason sanctification is not included in the ordo salutis of

Rom 8:29–30. Discipleship in Free Grace Theology begins with the believer’s assurance of their relationship with God. Bing summarizes, “The biblical motivation for good works is not to gain salvation or to stay out of hell, but to show love and gratitude toward the God who gave His Son so that we could have the free gift of eternal life. Grace is the purest motivation for a life of good works.”146

A person’s view of discipleship is also impacted by his or her biblical philosophy of history. As mentioned earlier, a biblical philosophy of history deals with the issue of meaning.Since the time of the Reformation, two primary systems have emerged that try to outline a biblical philosophy of history. They have developed into what we now call

Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology.

146 Bing, Simply by Grace, 82.

61

An Overview of Covenant Theology

Showers states, “Covenant Theology attempts to develop the Bible’s philosophy of history on the basis of covenants.”147 Some Covenant Theologians see two covenants, Works and Grace, and others see three, adding Redemption. Ryrie writes, “These two or three covenants become the core and basis of operation for covenant theology in its interpretation of the Scriptures.”148 As Vlach describes, “It is a system of theology that views God’s eternal plan of salvation through the outworking of three covenants—the Covenant of Works,

Covenant of Grace, and Covenant of Redemption.”149 Covenant Theology (hereafter CT) developed after the Protestant Reformation, and “…the Westminster Confession of Faith of

1647…is often viewed as a primary expression of CT.”150 Articles II and III of chapter VII state:

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.151

CT obviously has strong ties to Reformed Theology which emphasizes continuity between

147 Showers, There Really Is A Difference, 8.

148 Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 214.

149 Michael J. Vlach, “New Covenant Theology Compared With Covenantalism,” The Masters Seminary Journal 18, no. 1 (Fall 2007): 202, accessed March 20, 2020, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001643621&site=ehost-live.

150 Ibid., 202.

151 “The Westminster Confession of Faith,” accessed June 17, 2019, http://www.reformed.org/ documents/wcf_with_proofs.

62 the Old and New Testaments. Covenant Theologian Michael Horton states, “Reformed

Theology is synonymous with covenant theology.”152 He expands by saying, “Whenever

Reformed theologians attempt to explore and explain the riches of Scripture, they are always thinking covenantally about every topic they take up.”153 Concerning CT, The Dictionary of

Theological Terms states:

Thus there is a deep sense of continuity between the OT and the NT. The differences are those between types and their fulfilment, between shadows and their substance. It is a matter of historical and spiritual development. But both OT and NT present the same redemptive purpose of God, the same way of salvation, and the same great eschatological hope. Both Testaments present these truths in terms of “the everlasting covenant.” According to the NT, believers are reckoned in the same covenant as OT saints…. In the NT it is called a new and better covenant, because in the OT it was administered by Moses the servant, whereas in NT times it is administered personally by Christ the Son…154

The above description refers to several theological distinctions that accompany CT. One is a hermeneutic that interprets the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament.

Because of the idea of one redeemed community, the church becomes the recipient of the specific Old Testament promises made to Israel. CT negates the literal rule promised to

David’s seed in the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam 7:12–17) and the land promises made to Israel in the Land or Palestinian Covenant (Deut 29:1 – 30:20). In light of this there will be no millennial rule of Christ on earth and the promised kingdom becomes a spiritual kingdom in the hearts of men. The New Covenant (Jer 31:31–34) which is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah is now fulfilled by spiritual Israel, the church. This view is clearly

152 Horton, Introducing Covenant, 11.

153 Ibid., 14.

154 Allen Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms (Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International, 2002), 113.

63 seen in the statements of Berkhof:

It is very doubtful, however, whether Scripture warrants the expectation that Israel will finally be re-established as a nation, and will as a nation turn to the Lord. Some Old Testament prophecies seem to predict this, but these should be read in the light of the New Testament. Does the New Testament justify the expectation of a future restoration and conversion of Israel as a nation? It is not taught nor even necessarily implied in such passages as Matt. 19:28, and Luke 21:24, which are often quoted in its favor.155

CT Theologian Robert Reymond is even more to the point when he states, “The future messianic kingdom will embrace the whole of the newly recreated cosmos and will not experience a special manifestation that could be regarded in any sense as ‘Jewish’ in the region of the so-called Holy Land or anywhere else.”156 Continuity is also seen in the means of salvation:

[CT] insists that Old Testament saints were saved precisely the same way that New Testament saints are being saved, namely, through conscious faith in the (anticipated) sacrificial work of the promised Messiah on their behalf as that work was foresignified by Old Testament promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the Jewish people…157

Other key ideas of CT that come from Reformed Theology are the practice of infant baptism and the continuation of the Old Testament Law in the New Testament. Vlach writes,

Another key belief of CT is infant baptism. If Israel of the OT used circumcision on its children, then the new Israel – the church – should use baptism on its children as well. Also, many Covenant theologians hold that the Mosaic Law, particularly the Ten Commandments, is still in force. Though the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Mosaic Law are no longer binding, the moral law as found in the Decalogue is still operative. Thus the Mosaic Law has a continuing aspect today.158

155 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 699.

156 Robert L. Reymond, “The Traditional Covenantal View,” in Perspectives on Israel and the Church: 4 Views, ed. Chad O. Brand (Nashville: B&H Academic), 60.

157 Reymond, “The Traditional Covenantal View,” 17.

158 Vlach, “New Covenant Theology,” 204–05.

64

CT claims a grammatical-historical hermeneutic but part of that hermeneutic is that the New Testament interprets the Old Testament. Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum write,

“In other words, we must carefully allow the New Testament to show us how the Old

Testament is brought to fulfillment in Christ.”159 Typology is used extensively in CT and is often used as a justification to spiritualize or change the literal Old Testament understanding of a passage. Gentry and Wellum explain, “Scripture as an entire Canon must interpret

Scripture; the later parts must ‘draw out and explain more clearly the earlier parts,’ and theological conclusions must be exegetically derived from the entire Canon.”160 Illustrating the method, they write,

For covenant theology, the New Testament helps us understand that the land promise is that which is fulfilled in the coming of Christ and the dawning of the new creation and, as such, is typological of the new creation…Grammatical-historical exegesis needs to be set in the larger context of a canonical reading of Scripture; the parts must be read in terms of the whole.”161

In the past twenty years there has been a movement within CT that is classified as a more middle ground position. It was initially labeled New Covenant Theology (NCT) and later titled Progressive Covenantalism (PC). Progressive Covenantalism was coined by Peter

Gentry and Stephen Wellum in their book Kingdom through Covenant. They state, “If we were to label our view and to plot it on the map of current evangelical discussion, it would fit broadly under the umbrella of what is called ‘new covenant theology,’ or to coin a better

159 Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding Of The Covenants (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 86.

160 Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom, 86.

161 Ibid.

65 term, ‘progressive covenantalism’”.162 Concerning their choice of the term “progressive covenantalism,” they write,

Even though it is a new term, it nicely captures our basic proposal. “Progressive” seeks to underscore the progress or the unfolding of God’s revelation from old to new, and “covenantalism” expresses that God’s plan across redemptive-history unfolds through covenants as all of the covenants are terminated, culminated, and fulfilled in Christ and the arrival of the promised new covenant age.163

PC rejects the three theological covenants that are foundational to Covenant

Theology. PC theologians introduce more discontinuity by rejecting the Mosaic Law as binding on the New Testament believer and also by rejecting the practice of infant baptism.

Because their hermeneutic relies on interpreting the Old Testament through the lens of the

New Testament, Progressive Covenantalists see the Old Testament covenant promises fulfilled, in full, in Christ and by association, the church. They do recognize national Israel, but Israel is now part of the church, and the promised blessings of the Old Testament covenants are fulfilled spiritually for them because they are members of the body of Christ.

Like Covenant theologians, Progressive Covenantalists are amillennial and see no future earthly kingdom and land promise for Israel.

Progressive Covenantalism attempts to reach a middle ground between Covenant

Theology and Dispensational Theology. However, because of an inconsistent hermeneutic, key biblical texts are misinterpreted, which leads to a faulty eschatology, but more tragically, an unclear gospel. Their ties to Covenant Theology and Reformed Theology cause

Progressive Covenantalists to blur the distinction between justification and sanctification.

Faithfulness to the end of life becomes the ultimate test of salvation. In the final analysis,

162 Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom, 24.

163 Ibid.

66

Progressive Covenantalism holds to the basic CT positions on election, regeneration before faith, amillennialism, and perseverance of the saints for final salvation.

In summary, CT teaches a strong continuity between the Old Testament and the New

Testament based on two or three covenants that are the basis of interpretation. CT uses a hermeneutic that reads the New Testament back into the Old Testament so that the specific promises to Israel as a nation are now fulfilled by the church or will be fulfilled in the new creation. There will be no literal millennial kingdom on earth and the Mosaic Law, at least the moral aspect, is still applicable for the church today. As infants were brought into the community of faith under the Law by circumcision, now infants should be brought into the new Israel, the church, by baptism.

An Overview of Dispensational Theology

Rather than seeing two or three theological covenants as the basis of biblical interpretation, Dispensational Theology (hereafter DT) sees the Bible unfolding through different dispensations or economies that are progressive through biblical revelation. Charles

Ryrie defines a dispensation as “a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose.”164 Enns states, “Dispensationalists arrive at their system of interpretation through two primary principles: (1) maintaining a consistently literal method of interpretation, and (2) maintaining a distinction between Israel and the church.”165

Covenant theologians often make the claim that DT is a recent theology and thus

164 Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 33.

165 Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), 513.

67 should not be taken seriously.166 They claim that DT began with John Nelson Darby (1800-

1882); however, a strong case can be made that “…the foundations and initial developments of dispensationalism are ancient.”167 Ryrie notes that Darby is recognized as “…having much to do with the systematizing and promoting of dispensationalism.”168 Several of the church fathers such as Justin Martyr (AD 110-200), Irenaeus (AD 130-200), and Clement of

Alexandria (AD 150-220) identified different dispensations.169 French philosopher Pierre

Poiret (1646–1719) “…wrote a six volume systematic theology entitled L’O Economie

Divine. In this modified Calvinistic and premillennial work, Poiret presented a seven-fold dispensational scheme….”170 Clearly, both CT and DT were formalized into theological systems during the same time period following the Reformation. DT was popularized in the

Scofield Reference Bible in the early 1900s and in schools such as Moody Bible Institute,

Dallas Theological Seminary, Talbot Seminary, Grace Seminary, Faith Seminary, and

Philadelphia College of Bible.171

In defining dispensationalism, Ryrie asks the question, “What is the sine qua non (the absolutely indispensable part) of the system?”172 He gives a threefold answer:

166 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 69–86. Ryrie documents this charge and similar ones and defends an earlier origin of Dispensationalism.

167 Enns, The Moody Handbook, 513.

168 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 77.

169 Enns, The Moody Handbook, 513–514.

170 Ibid.

171 Ibid., 517.

172 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 45.

68

1. A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct... This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. 2. This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation… To be sure, literal/historical/grammatical interpretation is not the sole possession or practice of dispensationalists, but the consistent use of it in all areas of biblical interpretation is. 3. A third aspect of the sine qua non… concerns the underlying purpose of God in the world… To the normative dispensationalist, the soteriological, or saving, program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself. Scripture is not man-centered as though salvation were the main theme, but it is God-centered because His glory is the center.173

While CT does emphasize the glory of God, Ryrie notes, “The unifying principle of covenant theology is, in practice, soteriological. The unifying principle of normative

Dispensationalism is doxological, or the glory of God, for the dispensations reveal the glory of God as He manifests His character in the differing stewardships given to man.”174

Concerning this third area of glorifying God, Elliott Johnson writes:

The value of Dispensationalism features the distinctive view of the believer’s life as a steward of God’s will in his appointed time in history. However, the ultimate purpose of telling the story is to have God’s story move our hearts to worship. For while it is a story of man in history, that story uncovers the glory of God who shares Himself to accomplish His will for His own people who love Him and are called according to His purposes.175

In contrast to CT, DT believes the covenant promises of the Old Testament to Israel will be fulfilled literally on the earth during the millennial kingdom. The promises made in the Abrahamic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, the Palestinian Covenant, and the New

Covenant were made to Israel and will be fulfilled by Israel, not the church. The church is

173 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 46–48.

174 Ibid., 107.

175 Elliott Johnson, A Dispensational Biblical Theology (Allen, TX: Bold Grace Academic, 2016), 4.

69 seen as a mystery (Eph 3:1–10) that was not revealed in the Old Testament. As Walvoord states, “Dispensational ecclesiology defines the church as a distinct body of saints in the present age, having its own divine purpose and destiny and differing from the saints of the past or future ages.”176 Dispensationalists do not recognize the three theological covenants of

CT, the Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace, and Covenant of Redemption. DT does not say that the ideas contained in these supposed covenants are necessarily unscriptural, but that

“…they are ideas that are not systematized, formalized, and stated by Scripture as covenants… the covenant theologian never finds in the Bible the terms covenant of works and covenant of grace.”177

DT puts a strong emphasis on the literal historical-grammatical interpretation of the biblical covenants. They believe the Abrahamic, the Davidic, the Palestinian, and the New

Covenant are unconditional covenants and depend on God’s promise and faithfulness alone for fulfillment. While DT recognizes some conditions within these covenants that depend on human responses, the ultimate fulfillment will be brought about to Israel just as God promised.

In summary, DT is founded on a historical-grammatical or literal hermeneutic that does not read the New Testament back into the Old Testament for the purpose of spiritualizing the promises made to Abraham, David, and the nation of Israel. Israel and the church have distinct purposes in the overall plan of God. DT recognizes the discontinuities of

Scripture and sees them in the light of God’s progressive revelation and ultimate goal of His

176 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), 224.

177 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 220.

70 glory.

A Comparison of Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology

It will be helpful to compare CT and DT in six key areas to establish the differences between the two systems before specific implications on the gospel and discipleship are drawn. The areas addressed are: the hermeneutics of each system, the relationship of Israel and the church, the Law, salvation, the kingdom promises and their fulfillment, and the relationship of the New Covenant to Israel and the church. Each comparison is a simple overview, without any detailed defense or criticism of either system.

Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics is defined as the “…science and art of biblical interpretation.

Interpretation is a science because there are laws that guide it. It is an art because the laws must be applied skillfully.”178 Ryrie writes, “Hermeneutics is the science that furnishes the principles of interpretation. These principles guide and govern anybody’s system of theology.

They ought to be determined before one’s theology is systematized, but in practice the reverse is usually true.”179 Both CT and DT claim that they use a biblical hermeneutic. DT appeals to a grammatical-historical, literal approach to understanding the text of Scripture.

Ryrie explains,

The principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal meaning of words is the normal approach to their understanding in all languages. It might also be designated plain interpretation so that no one receives the mistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech. Symbols, figures of speech, and types are

178 Hawley, The Guts of Grace, 17.

179 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 89.

71

all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation.180

Dispensationalists often accuse CT of allegorizing or spiritualizing the literal meaning of Old Testament texts, specifically those that relate to unfulfilled prophecy concerning

Israel, and thus changing the original author’s intended meaning. However, CT also claims to use a grammatical-historical, literal approach. The difference is that part of its understanding of a literal hermeneutic is to give the New Testament priority over the Old Testament. CT’s continuity is seen in terms such as “a unified revelation,” or a “thick” way of reading the text, or interpreting with a fuller meaning, an idea that has been labelled “sensus plenior.”181

Gentry and Wellum write, “Once again, hermeneutically speaking, this reminds us that

Scripture must be read as an entire revelation, i.e., canonically, in order to discern God’s overall plan, what we have called a ‘thick’ reading of Scripture.”182 Since the New Testament is later revelation and part of the unified canon, it therefore must have more weight than the

Old Testament. Gentry and Wellum expand this concept by writing:

Thus, as more revelation was given over time and through later authors, we discover more of God’s plan and where that plan is going. It is for this reason that the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old Testament becomes definitive in helping us interpret the details of the Old Testament, since later revelation brings with it greater clarity and understanding. In other words, we must carefully allow the New Testament to show us how the Old Testament is brought to fulfillment in Christ. In this way… the New Testament may expand the Old Testament author’s meaning in the sense of seeing new implications and applications.183

180 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 91.

181 Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom, 84–5. They label a “thin” reading of Scripture as isolating texts apart from the whole. A “thick” reading is to read every text in light of the entire canon of Scripture. Sensus plenior is the idea that the Old Testament authors did not fully understand what they wrote and therefore later revelation given in the New Testament helps to interpret or give a fuller meaning to the Old Testament text.

182 Ibid., 89.

183 Ibid.

72

Since both sides of the debate claim to be using a literal hermeneutic it appears that the starting assumptions influence the direction in which the theological system travels. Mike

Stallard notes:

The basic distinction, if these writers are correct, seems to be posited in the starting place for theology. Dispensationalists begin their eschatological scheme by applying the grammatical-historical method of interpretation to the Old Testament. Nondispensationalists begin their sketch of prophecy by applying the same hermeneutic to the New Testament. Each system then branches out from its starting place to include the other remaining portions of Scripture.184

Stallard summarizes the hermeneutics of CT as follows:

1. The recognition of one’s own preunderstanding. 2. The formulation of a biblical theology on the New Testament based upon the literal interpretation (grammatical-historical interpretation) of the New Testament text. 3. The formulation of a biblical theology of the Old Testament based upon the New Testament understanding of the Old Testament text. 4. The production of a systematic theology by harmonizing all of the inputs above to theology including the results of 2 and 3 above.185

If the New Testament reinterprets the Old Testament, dispensationalist Paul Finberg asks,

“How can the integrity of the OT text be maintained? In what sense can the OT really be called a revelation in its original meaning?”186 Finberg elaborates:

…there is no need to go behind the text to find the author’s intention, for it is in the text. The intentional fallacy is based upon the false assumption that writers are incapable of expressing their intentions through the texts that they produce. This is simply false, and if it is not, then their intentions must remain a mystery, and it does no good to talk about them….God has committed his will and truth to a written text, and what is true for human authors’ intentions will be true for God’s…. If

184 Mike Stallard, “Literal Hermeneutics, Theological Method, And The Essence of Dispensationalism,” accessed Jan. 15, 2020, http://www.our-hope.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ literal.pdf, 8.

185 Ibid., 14.

186 Paul D. Feinberg, “Hermeneutics of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton: Crossway, 1988), 116.

73

propositional revelation is possible, then God should be more able, not less, to express his intentions in Scripture. Meaning is associated with authorial intent (in this case the human and divine) and that is to be found in the analysis of the text.187

Ryrie states:

Literal interpretation results in accepting the text of Scripture at its face value. Based on the philosophy that God originated language for the purpose of communicating His message to man and that He intended man to understand that message, literal interpretation seeks to interpret that message plainly….Taking the text at face value and recognizing distinctions in the process of revelation leads to the recognition of differing economies in the outworking of God’s program. In other words, consistent literalism is the basis for dispensationalism.188

Although Covenant theologians claim a grammatical-literal hermeneutic, it is not a consistent one. Because they begin in the New Testament and allow it to interpret the Old Testament, the literal meaning of the Old Testament as would have been understood by the readers of that period, is modified and often completely changed. On the other hand, DT attempts to apply the same hermeneutic to both the Old and New Testaments. Johnson highlights, “One contribution of Dispensationalism is its claim to provide a single and consistent hermeneutic to the whole canon.”189

In conclusion, CT, because of its understanding of continuity, sees the Bible as a unified whole and gives greater weight to the later revelation of the New Testament. This hermeneutic allows the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament and to give an expanded, and often unknown, meaning to the original authors of the Old Testament text.

DT, by applying the same grammatical-historical hermeneutic to the Old Testament and the

187 Feinberg, “Hermeneutics of Discontinuity,” 117. The pronoun “his” for God is not capitalized in the quote.

188 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 102–03.

189 Johnson, Biblical Theology, 5.

74

New Testament, sees much more God-intended discontinuity between the Testaments.

Israel and the Church

Probably the clearest illustration of the difference between CT and DT is the understanding of the relationship of Israel to the church. The key issue is whether or not the

Old Testament promises to national Israel are to be fulfilled literally in the future by Israel, or rather whether the church has become spiritual Israel and thus inherited the promises made to national Israel. CT, because of the continuity of the system, sees the people of God as the same throughout history. Berkhof notes, “The New Testament Church is essentially one with the Church of the old dispensation.”190 Tan similarly states, “Covenant theologians teach that the Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church are one people, one being the continuation and successor of the other.”191 Berkhof writes, “the Church existed in the old dispensation as well as in the new, and was essentially the same in both, in spite of acknowledged institutional and administrative differences.”192 Baker expands:

This is one of the chief tenets of Covenant Theology. Most covenant theologians are A-millennial and must therefore argue that the present dispensation is the final one in which all of the Old Testament promises must find their fulfillment. These promises were made to Israel; hence the Church must be spiritual Israel, since the Church comprises God’s people today. Not only must Israel be spiritualized to mean Gentiles, but the physical and material earthly promises must be spiritualized to mean purely spiritual blessings in heaven.193

Tan states, “Concerning the nation Israel, covenant theologians maintain that Israel is now

190 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 571.

191 Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy (Winona Lake, IN: Assurance Publishers, 1974), 247.

192 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 571. Italics in original.

193 Charles F. Baker, A Dispensational Theology (Grand Rapids: Grace Bible College Publications, 1971), 526.

75 cast aside because she crucified the Messiah and is now no more special to God than any other nation on earth.”194 He additionally notes, “Covenant theologians hand the Old

Testament promises over to the church, and leave the threats and curses often found in the same Old Testament texts behind for Israel.”195

DT sees discontinuity between Israel and the church. Walvoord states,

“Dispensational ecclesiology defines the church as a distinct body of saints in the present age, having its own divine purpose and destiny and differing from the saints of the past or future ages.”196 Ryrie calls “…the doctrine of the Church…the touchstone of dispensationalism (and also of pretribulationism).”197 DT recognizes that Israel and the church are always kept distinct in the New Testament and Old Testament. Richard Mayhue writes,

The book of Acts speaks frequently of the “church” (nineteen times) and “Israel” (twenty times). However, ‘church’ refers to those believing at Pentecost and beyond; while “Israel” refers to the nation – historically and ethnically. The terms are never used synonymously or interchangeably. The church is never called “spiritual Israel” or “new Israel” in the NT; furthermore, Israel is never called “the church” in the OT.198

Concerning the church as the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27), Ryrie notes,

It is distinct because of who are included within that body (i.e., Jews and Gentiles as fellow heirs), and it is distinct because of the new relationships of being in Christ and of Christ’s indwelling the members of that body. Both of these distinctives are unique with the church and were not known or experienced by God’s people in Old

194 Tan, Interpretation, 249.

195 Ibid., 250.

196 Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom, 224.

197 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 143.

198 Richard L. Mayhue, “New Covenant Theology and Futuristic Premillennialism,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 18, no. 2 (September 2007): 230, accessed January 16, 2020, https://tms.edu/m/tmsj18j.pdf.

76

Testament times….199

DT also notes that the church had its beginning in the New Testament. Enns writes,

…an examination of the New Testament indicates the church is a peculiar New Testament entity that had not previously existed. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus declared, “I will build my church,” indicating the building of the church was future. This point is important. It emphasizes that the church was not yet in existence when Jesus spoke these words. He was making a prediction concerning His future building of the church.200

Because Israel and the church are seen to be separate entities by DT, the unfilled Old

Testament promises to Israel will be fulfilled by Israel in the future. The church age is something new that was not revealed in the Old Testament, and the church does not replace

Israel.

To summarize, CT, because of its emphasis on continuity, sees Israel and the church as basically the same. Both are the people of God, and the promises to Israel, which CT admits were literal, are now being fulfilled spiritually by the church. The promises to Israel of a literal kingdom, land, and heir of David on a literal throne in Jerusalem are now being spiritually fulfilled by the church and will ultimately be fulfilled in the new heavens and new earth. DT, on the other hand, sees the discontinuity between Israel and the church and believes that the promises to Israel will be fulfilled literally in the coming millennial kingdom. The church is a new entity, consisting of Jew and Gentile made one in the body of

Christ, that was not revealed in the Old Testament.

The Law

The continuity or discontinuity of the Mosaic Law between the Old Testament and

199 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 144.

200 Enns, The Moody Handbook, 348–49.

77 the New Testament is an area of much disagreement. The continuum can be visualized as such:

Road of Continuity/Discontinuity201 Continuity Discontinuity Theonomy Covenant Progressive Forms of Dispensationalism Theology Covenantalism Progressive Revised Classical

Meyer states, “The first two systems of theology stress continuity with respect to the law and

NT ethics. Theonomy202 has distinguished itself on the far left of the continuity divide because it sees the most carryover from the OT law to NT ethics.”203 He notes, “Both theonomy and covenant theology use the tripartite division of the law consisting of the three categories – moral, civil, and ceremonial.”204 Additionally, “Theonomists contend that the moral and civil laws are still binding today (continuity), while the ceremonial laws are no longer binding because of Christ’s sacrifice (discontinuity). Covenant theologians hold that the moral law is binding (continuity), but both the civil and the ceremonial laws are abrogated (discontinuity).”205 For CT the pressing questions are:

In what manner [do] the particulars of the Mosaic Law apply to Christians? Are we to assume that only those particulars which the NT expressly sanctions (whether in unaltered or modified form) remain in force for believers today? Or are we to assume instead that Christians are bound to obey all those particulars which the NT does not

201 Jason C. Meyer, “The Mosaic Law, Theological Systems, and the Glory of Christ,” in Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenant Theologies, ed. Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 71.

202 Theonomy comes from the combination of two Greek words, theos, which means god, and nomos, which means law. Theonomists believe that both the moral and civil laws are still binding whereas most Covenant Theologians believe only the moral law is still binding.

203 Meyer, “The Mosaic Law,” 71.

204 Ibid.

205 Ibid., 72.

78

expressly abrogate?”206

Most Covenant theologians would argue that the portion of the Mosaic Law termed the “Moral Law” is still binding for the Christian. Berkhof expresses this obligation to the Law by writing:

The law lays claim, and justly so, on the entire life of man in all its aspects, including his relation to the gospel of Jesus Christ. When God offers man the gospel, the law demands that the latter shall accept this…. The Gospel itself consists of promises and is no law; yet there is a demand of the law in connection with the gospel. The law not only demands that we accept the gospel and believe in Jesus Christ, but also that we lead a life of gratitude in harmony with its requirements.207

Berkhof goes on to say, “The Law is a rule of life for believers, reminding them of their duties and leading them in the way of life and salvation.”208 Daniel Fuller states, “I have concluded that compliance with the Mosaic law is an ‘obedience of faith’…that faith is not merely accompanied by good works as something coordinate with it, but that faith itself is the mainspring for producing good works.”209 The Reformed doctrine of “Perseverance of the

Saints” logically flows from this understanding of faith being connected with obedience to the Law. A life that is not characterized by obedience to the Law would indicate that a person is not truly justified. Horton confirms this idea by his statement:

The New Testament lays before us a vast array of conditions for final salvation. Not only initial repentance and faith, but perseverance in both, demonstrated in love toward God and neighbor, are part of that holiness without which no one will see the Lord (Heb.12:14) Such holiness is not simply definitive – that is, it belongs not only

206 Knox Chamblin, “The Law of Moses and The Law of Christ,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton: Crossway, 1988), 183.

207 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 614.

208 Ibid., 615.

209 Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum?: The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), xi.

79

to our justification, which is an imputed rather than imparted righteousness, but to our sanctification, that inner renewal by the Spirit.210

On the other end of the spectrum, DT says that the Mosaic Law, in its entirety, has come to its end and is not binding after the death of Christ. DT sees the Mosaic Law as being specifically given to Israel but not as a means of justification. Wayne Strickland states, “The law presents Moses and the redeemed people with their responsibilities as a theocratic nation under God; obedience to the commandments will bring physical blessing and long life.”211 He notes, “The new covenant has rendered the old covenant inoperative. Just as there was no

Mosaic law during the dispensation from Adam to Moses, so also there is a period following the Mosaic era in which the law is no longer the operative principle.”212 DT does not teach antinomianism, but instead believes that Christians are now under the law of Christ and that the power to fulfill Christ’s commands comes by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Tom Constable writes:

The “law of Christ” encompasses the whole of Jesus’ teaching personally while He was on earth and through His apostles and prophets from heaven following His ascension (cf. Acts 1:1–2). It boils down to the command to love God wholeheartedly and one’s neighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:36–40; John 13:34–35; 15:12; 1 John 3:23).213

Strickland writes, “The law of Christ is the new covenant counterpart to the Mosaic law. Just as the Mosaic law was normative for the Jew, the law of Christ is binding for the Christian.

210 Horton, Introducing Covenant, 182.

211 Wayne G. Strickland, “The Inauguration of the Law of Christ with the Gospel of Christ: A Dispensational View,” in Five Views On Law And Gospel, ed. Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 234.

212 Strickland, “The Inauguration of the Law of Christ,” 262.

213 Tom Constable, “Notes on Galatians,” 2020 ed., 123, accessed November 22, 2019, https:// planobiblechapel.org/tcon/notes/pdf/galatians.pdf.

80

Both are specific applications of God’s eternal moral standard.”214 He continues, “Since the

Holy Spirit ministers in the life of the New Testament believer on behalf of Jesus Christ, there is no need for any lengthy, detailed, codified, external means of restraint as in the

Mosaic law.”215 Strickland sums up the Dispensational view:

…it is no longer necessary to propose a construct where obedience is the defining element of faith and where Gospel and Law are in absolute continuum. The law is properly understood to reveal the problem of sin and the necessity of grace in redemption, but the law is not seen as binding for the church saint. Rather the law prefigures the redemption wrapped up in the person of Jesus Christ. The regulatory aspect of the law, binding on the Mosaic believer, dealt with sanctification and not justification, and it has been terminated…. As with Paul, the church age believer may rejoice that ‘now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law’ (Gal. 3:25)…. Law and grace as methods of justification must not be allowed to mix, or else grace has been lost.216

In general, CT sees at least parts of the Mosaic Code as normative in the life of the New

Testament believer while DT stresses that the Mosaic Code has ended and the believer is under the law of Christ.

Salvation

As touched on previously, because of its Reformed Theology roots and view of continuity between the Law and the gospel, CT sees the content of saving faith, based in the covenant of grace, as being the same in the Old Testament as in the New Testament. Berkhof clarifies, “The Bible teaches that there is but a single gospel by which men can be saved. And because the gospel is nothing but the revelation of the covenant of grace, it follows that there

214 Strickland, “Inauguration,” 277.

215 Ibid.

216 Ibid., 279.

81 is also but one covenant.”217

For the Covenant theologian, salvation has always been by grace through faith and the Old Testament saint was saved by believing in the coming Messiah just as the New

Testament saint is saved by believing in Jesus. However, CT tends to see justification and sanctification as inseparable parts of the same process. Horton says, “Covenant theology sees the justification of the individual before God and the justification of God in the great trial of history as two sides of the same coin. It also sees God’s declaration in justification as crucially related to this verdict’s effect in the new birth, sanctification, and finally, glorification.”218 He goes on to say, “In the covenantal thinking we find in Scripture, there is no such thing as true knowledge without love and obedience. To know God is actually…to acknowledge God – that is, to walk after God in the way that a servant walked behind a king in a solemn procession, recognizing his sovereignty.”219 In other words a believer must demonstrate obedience and live a sanctified life, or otherwise he is not truly saved.

While CT tries to maintain faith alone as the basis of justification, often Covenant theologians make statements that seem contradictory. In the following quote Horton seems to say that justification is different from sanctification but then says they cannot be separated:

While our status before God (justification) is distinguished from our inward renewal (rebirth and sanctification), our status cannot be separated from our inward renewal even for a moment. Thus, because of God’s sworn oath by himself, the justified sinner will also be one who perseveres against doubt, temptation, the world, the flesh, and the devil, one day inheriting by that same royal grant rest from all warfare.220

217 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 279.

218 Horton, Introducing Covenant, 18.

219 Ibid., 18.

220 Ibid., 76.

82

So in CT justification is “distinguished” from sanctification, but it cannot be

“separated.” Another practice CT endorses because of the continuity between Israel and the church is infant baptism “…since the Old and New Testaments both describe circumcision/baptism and Passover/the Lord’s Supper as signs and seals of the covenant….”221 Horton states that “…baptism is explicitly linked to regeneration and forgiveness of sins,”222 but then goes on to say, “Baptism, like circumcision, is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, not the cause of election, regeneration, and justification.”223 He later summarizes, “All these formulations speak clearly of the significance of baptism in mediating redemption; they speak of what happens in and by baptism and not merely of what happened before baptism and of which baptism would only be the confirmation.”224 Berkhof states, “In the new dispensation baptism is by divine authority substituted for circumcision as the initiatory sign and seal of the covenant of grace.”225

Because infants were circumcised under the Law in Israel, and because the church, according to CT, is now spiritual Israel and baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant, infants should therefore be baptized as a sign of the covenant. Berkhof explains, “If children received the sign and seal of the covenant in the old dispensation, the presumption is that they surely have a right to receive it in the new….”226 Because it cannot

221 Horton, Introducing Covenant, 144.

222 Ibid., 153.

223 Ibid.

224 Ibid., 155.

225 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 633.

226 Ibid., 634.

83 be known for certain if infants will actually profess faith in Christ when they come of age, there is the possibility of having those who are baptized into the New Covenant who are actually not saved. CT reasons that just as there were saved and unsaved in the nation of

Israel under the Law, there will be saved and unsaved in the church under the New Covenant.

DT also believes that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone but that the content of that faith has differed somewhat over the progress of revelation. Ross states,

“…there is a difference of opinion on the content of faith prior to the incarnation of Jesus

Christ. What exactly did Abram believe? What did OT believers know about the provision of salvation?”227 He summarizes,

…we may affirm that according to the eternal purpose of God salvation in the divine reckoning is always by grace, through faith, and rests upon the shed blood of Christ; but we must acknowledge that it was historically impossible that OT saints should have had as the conscious object of their faith the incarnate, crucified Son, the Lamb of God, and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ.228

Because of the discontinuity between Israel and the church, DT does not see baptism as the sacramental means of entering the New Covenant. Baker states,

Practically all dispensationalists agree that there are no sacramental means of grace in effect in this present dispensation of the grace of God. Even those who practice water baptism do so, not for the purpose of conferring the grace of God in salvation, but for a variety of reasons: as an act of obedience to Christ, as a symbol of death and burial, as a testimony to the world, as an initiation into church membership, etc.229

Also, most Dispensationalists see discontinuity in justification and sanctification. They do

227 Allen P. Ross, “The Biblical Method of Salvation: A Case for Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton: Crossway, 1988), 169.

228 Ibid., 171.

229 Baker, Dispensational Theology, 406.

84 not deny that the norm should be a life of holiness by the power of the indwelling Holy

Spirit, but they do recognize that perseverance in holiness is not the test of justification.

In summary, CT sees salvation as based in the covenant of grace with a strong continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Perseverance in the faith is necessary for final salvation. The sacraments are seen as means of grace, and infant baptism is justified because it is seen as the New Covenant replacement for circumcision. On the other hand, DT sees discontinuity between the Old and New Testament and although salvation has always been by grace through faith, the content of that faith is specifically defined in the New

Testament. Justification is based on faith alone in Christ alone, and sanctification, while expected, is not the test for “final salvation.”

The Kingdom Promises

CT denies that there will be a literal fulfilment of the Old Testament kingdom promises by Israel. Because the church has become spiritual Israel in the New Covenant, the promises to Israel, specifically the land promise, a literal throne, and a millennial kingdom, are now being fulfilled spiritually by the church. Christ is presently sitting on David’s throne in heaven, the land promise will be realized in the new heaven and earth, and the millennial kingdom is now present in the hearts of believers. Horton writes,

…we are living in the period described symbolically in Revelation 20 as a thousand- year reign of Christ, to be followed by Christ’s return, when he will hand over the kingdom to his Father. This view is usually called amillennialism (i.e., “no- millennialism”), but this is a misnomer, at least for those of us who believe that the millennium is not denied but is in fact a current reality. What we reject is a literalistic interpretation of the thousand years, since the book of Revelation employs numbers symbolically.230

230 Horton, Introducing Covenant, 120.

85

Berkhof indicates that there will be only one final return of Christ at the end of the age to introduce the eternal state: “Christ will return at the end of the world for the purpose of introducing the future age, the eternal state of things, and He will do this by inaugurating and completing two mighty events, namely, the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment.”231

In contrast, DT sees the kingdom promises to Israel to be fulfilled literally in the plain sense that the Old Testament readers would have understood. Speaking of the Davidic

Covenant Walvoord writes, “If a literal interpretation be adopted, the present session of

Christ is not a fulfillment of the covenant, and it must be referred to the future. It is clear that at the present time Christ is not in any literal sense reigning over the kingdom of David.”232

He goes on to say, “A literal promise spiritualized is exegetical fraud. The point of the

Davidic covenant is that the Son of David will possess the throne of His father David. To make His person literal but His throne a spiritualized concept is to nullify the promise.”233

Concerning the literal meaning of the thousand years in Rev 20, Alva McClain states, “In chapters 4–20 of the Book of Revelation there are at least twenty-five references to measures of time. Of these, only two require what is called a ‘figurative’ treatment.”234 He concludes,

“In the thousand years of Rev 20:1–7, then, we have set forth the precise length of the

Mediatorial Kingdom, which earlier had been stated indefinitely in Old Testament

231 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 707.

232 Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom, 199.

233 Ibid., 200. Italics in original.

234 Alva J. McClain, The Greatness Of The Kingdom (Winona Lake, IN: BHM Books, 1974), 493.

86 prophecy.”235

CT denies the literal one-thousand-year millennial kingdom of Christ on earth and sees the Old Testament promises to Israel being fulfilled spiritually by the church. Christ is now on David’s throne spiritually in heaven. DT sees a future, literal fulfillment of the kingdom promises. Christ will rule for one thousand years from Jerusalem on a literal throne over the covenant people Israel.

The New Covenant

As stated by Larry Pettegrew, “The discussion about the New Covenant among the systems focuses on two key questions: (1) Is the new covenant a renewed Old Covenant or a

New Covenant distinct from the Mosaic Covenant? (2) Is the ‘Israel’ that is to fulfill the New

Covenant really Israel, or is Israel somehow replaced by the church?”236 He continues,

“Covenant theologians argue that the New Covenant is really the Old Covenant updated.”237

Speaking of the similarities between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, Calvin writes,

“Both can be explained in one word. The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation.”238 Pettigrew notes, “As to who fulfills the New Covenant, traditional Covenant Theology answers that though the New Covenant was made with Israel,

235 McClain, Greatness Of The Kingdom, 494.

236 Larry D. Pettegrew, “The New Covenant and New Covenant Theology,” The Masters Seminary Journal 18, no. 2 (September 2007): 186, accessed January 15, 2020, https://tms.edu/msj/msj18-2-3/.

237 Ibid., 187.

238 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 1.

87 it is ultimately fulfilled with the church.”239

In contrast, DT sees the New Covenant as new, that is, different, from the Old

Covenant. Dispensationalists differ somewhat in their understanding of how the New

Covenant relates to the church. Some Dispensationalists “…teach that the New Covenant was indeed inaugurated in connection with the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of

Christ and with the coming of the Spirit in His New Covenant ministries on the day of

Pentecost.”240 Ryrie notes three major ideas:

Some have taught that the church has no relation to the new covenant, only Israel does. Others see two new covenants, one with Israel and another with the church. Others acknowledge that the church receives some of the blessings (or similar blessings) promised in the Old Testament revelation of the new covenant but not all of them… All premillennialists agree that there will be a future fulfillment of the covenant for Israel at the second coming of Christ (Rom. 11:26-27; cf. Heb. 10:16).241

Dispensationalists do not deny that the church receives spiritual blessings since the death of

Christ, but they all agree the New Covenant was made with Israel and that its ultimate fulfillment will be with Israel. Dwight Pentecost notes, “This covenant…has to do with the regeneration, forgiveness, and justification of Israel, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit with

His subsequent ministries, Israel’s regathering and restoration to the place of blessing, all founded on the blood of Jesus Christ.”242 However, Progressive dispensationalists have moved away from several of the standard dispensational points. Ryrie offers the following three major differences:

239 Pettegrew, “New Covenant,” 188.

240 Ibid., 192.

241 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 202.

242 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come: A Study In Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1964), 116.

88

Progressive dispensationalism (1) teaches that Christ is already reigning in heaven on the throne of David, thus merging the church with a present phase of the already inaugurated Davidic covenant and kingdom; (2) this is based on a complementary hermeneutic that allows the New Testament to introduce changes and additions to Old Testament revelation; and (3) the overall purpose of God is Christological, holistic redemption being the focus and goal of history.243

Progressive dispensationalists understand Christ to already be inaugurated as the Davidic king seated on the Davidic throne instead of being seated at the right hand of the father waiting to be enthroned on the Davidic throne in the Millennium. It appears this understanding is so that the church may be recognized as a part of the already inaugurated kingdom.

In summary, CT sees the New Covenant as a continuation of the Old Covenant with new distinctions. For CT, the New Covenant has been fully realized in the church today.

There will be no future literal fulfillment of the Jer 31 promises for Israel. DT sees the New

Covenant as inaugurated by the death of Christ with the church receiving spiritual benefits such as the indwelling Spirit and relationship with God through the priesthood of Jesus.

However, Dispensationalists recognize that the fulfillment of the New Covenant relates to

Israel and will not be accomplished until Christ returns to set up His kingdom. The implications on the gospel and discipleship in these two very different philosophies of history will now be compared.

The Implications On The Gospel And Discipleship

Because of its strong ties to Reformed Theology, CT spiritualizes many texts that are written to Israel concerning the tribulation period. In light of this, CT fails to present a clear gospel of grace. Covenant theologians are amillennial in their eschatology which causes them

243 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 192.

89 to misinterpret several key texts. Anderson traces this movement from premillennial to amillennial thinking back to Augustine.244 He notes, “when Augustine became amillennial, this major change in his eschatology affected other parts of his theology, namely his soteriology.”245 Anderson points out, “in the soteriological writings of Augustine, one verse has center stage. This verse is practically the point of departure for Augustine’s understanding of soteriology… It is none other than Matthew 24:13 – ‘But he who endures to the end shall be saved.’”246 Because Matt 24:13 could not mean salvation in the sense of deliverance from the tribulation period and enduring until the end of that period, “the only interpretive option open to him was a spiritual one, so he understood the verse to mean only those believers who persevere in their Christian lives until the end of their physical lives will be able to go to heaven (saved).”247 This led eventually to the fifth point of Calvinism: perseverance of the saints. For believers to know that they are truly elect they must persevere, or evidence certain fruits in their life until they die. Anderson notes, “John Calvin, who began teaching assurance as the essence of faith, wound up teaching no man could tell if he were elect or reprobate until he died. Matt 24:13 remained a cornerstone of the soteriology of the Reformers.”248 Gentry and Wellum clearly state their Reformed view when they write,

What is the scope, extent, and design of the new covenant? Is it a general covenant made with everybody, making salvation possible for everyone, if they will take it? Or, is it a limited covenant made only with certain men and assuring their eternal

244 Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, 295–324. In the chapter, “How Augustine’s Change in Eschatology Has Shaped Christian Soteriology,” Anderson traces Augustine’s movement from premillennial theology to amillennial theology and the effects it had on his soteriology.

245 Ibid., 1.

246 Ibid., 9–10.

247 Ibid., 12.

248 Ibid., 29.

90

salvation? Whom does our Lord, as the high priest of the new covenant, represent in his death and apply the fruits of that covenant to? Does he represent all people universally, or does he represent a particular people who are effectively brought to salvation and receive the benefits of the new covenant? From our exposition of the new covenant, we affirm the latter. To answer in any other way is to remove the work of Christ from its new covenant context, which is precisely the problem with general atonement views.249

Concerning the extent of the atonement they write,

Was the intent of the atonement specially to render certain the salvation of the elect, in terms not only of putting away the sins of the elect but also of ensuring ‘that they would be brought to faith through regeneration, and kept in faith for glory, and that this is what it was intended to achieve’ (the Calvinist, particular redemption view)? It is our conviction that [this]…view is correct. Christ died for the purpose of saving only those to whom he actually applies the benefits of his work.250

The statement “kept in faith for glory” is key to their system. If someone is not continuing in the faith, then his or her eternal salvation comes into question. The practical fallout is that none can know for certain that they have eternal life until they die. Therefore by implication, discipleship becomes a test of true conversion.

Reformed writers Thomas Schreiner and Ardel Caneday propose what they call the

“means of salvation view” to explain the warning passages of Hebrews.251 Summarizing this view, Christopher Cowan writes:

This view argues that the warning passages of the NT ‘are addressed to believers, and they are threatened with eternal destruction…if they commit apostasy.’ But genuine believers will not apostatize. Truly, believers must heed the warnings to be saved. But the warnings are themselves a means of preserving grace God uses to ensure the perseverance of his saints.252

249 Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom, 679–80.

250 Ibid., 671.

251 Thomas R. Schreiner and Ardel B. Caneday, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 40.

252 Christopher W. Cowan, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews and the New Covenant Community,” in Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course Between Dispensational and Covenant Theologies, ed. Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2016), 199.

91

He continues:

According to the broad NT witness, believers in Jesus – both new converts and experienced Christians – are never assured they will inherit the kingdom of God regardless of their actions. Rather apostolic teaching regularly includes exhortations to persevere in order to obtain eternal life. This is not a denial that Christians now possess eternal life; instead, it is an acknowledgment that the NT presents salvation with both present and future dimensions. This ‘already-but-not-yet character of salvation’ is a reality because the cross and resurrection of Christ ‘constitute the invasion of God’s end-time work into the present age.’ While the letter to the Hebrews primarily presents salvation as a future reward, the letter also reflects the ‘inaugurated eschatology’ of the rest of the NT… How does one obtain the prize of salvation? The redemptive work of Jesus Christ is the objective basis of salvation, but the subjective means of salvation is the individual exercise of faith in Christ. Christians must persevere in faith to the end; they must ‘run the race’ to finally receive eternal life.253

This is a sad understanding that marries justification and sanctification. How can individuals possess eternal life now but not know they possess it because they have to exercise faith for the rest of their lives? No matter how one dresses it up, this line of thinking finally boils down to works salvation. This is in opposition to Paul’s statement in Rom 4:4–5:

“Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”

CT, because of its strong ties to Reformed Theology, has confused justification and sanctification and makes faithfulness to the end of life a test of final salvation. Although these systems use the phrase “faith alone in Christ alone for eternal life,” in reality this phrase is stripped of any real meaning in their “already – not yet” confusion about justification.

253 Cowan, “The Warning Passages,” 199–200.

92

Conclusion

In summary, Reformed Theology elevates the sovereignty of God and begins with

God electing, without any reference to man’s response, some to receive the gift of life and others to be sentenced to eternal death. Arminian Theology elevates the person-hood of man in the image of God and begins with a prevenient grace that is offered to all men. Each person has the ability to respond or not respond in faith to the grace given and is thus held responsible if he does not believe.

We have seen that one’s understanding of an ordo salutis directly affects his soteriology and his progressive sanctification. Theologians explain faith, regeneration, perseverance, and assurance in light of the theology that emerges from their perceived ordo salutis. Calvinists see the ordo salutis as an unbreakable chain that begins with the pre- temporal, unconditional election of certain people to eternal life. Salvation is all of God, and man has no part. In contrast, the Arminian ordo salutis begins with faith that is not the result of a predetermined election but results from man’s genuine response to the gospel. However, on the issues of assurance of salvation and perseverance of the saints, the two theologies are actually very similar. Both teach that a person must persevere in holiness to the end of his physical life to prove he has eternal life. If he does not, the Calvinist would say he never had it, and the Arminian would say he lost it. Assurance is foggy for the Calvinist. He may look to his life and works and assume that he is one of the elect, but he cannot be absolutely certain, as he cannot know if he will persevere to the end. Assurance for the Arminian is a little more firm, since at any moment that he is living a holy life, he is self-assured that he would go to heaven in that moment. However, long term assurance can never be guaranteed as he might at some future date stop believing and thus, lose eternal life.

93

Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology, emerged as systems soon after the

Reformation. Both present a biblical philosophy of history, yet their conclusions are very different due to differences in their hermeneutics. Covenant Theology sees continuity between the Old and New Testaments and therefore one people of God who are the same throughout the Scriptures. Israel and the church are one, and the promises to Israel in the Old

Testament are fulfilled and received by the church in the New Testament. Covenant theologians base their system on two or three theological covenants that, although not found in the Bible, are logical deductions from their system. Their hermeneutic relies on interpreting the Old Testament by the New Testament and spiritualizes the literal promises given to Israel. This affects their understanding of the Mosaic Law, infant baptism, the

Sabbath, and God’s future plans for the nation of Israel. There will be no promised kingdom for Israel on the earth with the Messiah reigning on the literal throne of David. Instead they are amillennial in their eschatology and see the reign of Jesus as being currently in the heart of believers. The second coming of Christ will not be to set up His kingdom on earth, but to inaugurate the new heavens and new earth. CT and Reformed Theology are identical when it comes to discipleship. A person must endure to the end of their life to be assured of eternal life.

Dispensational Theology, on the other hand, sees discontinuity between the Old and

New Testaments. Based on a literal, historical-grammatical hermeneutic, Dispensational theologians believe the Old Testament promises to Israel are not abated by the New

Testament. The church is not Israel, but rather a special group consisting of Jews and

Gentiles that was not foreseen in the Old Testament. Because of national Israel’s rejection of their Messiah, the church age is a parenthesis in God’s timetable for Israel, and one day Israel

94 will be restored and receive the covenant promises of the Old Testament. Christ is not currently ruling on David’s throne in a spiritual sense but is seated at the right hand of the

Father’s throne until the time of His return to set up the millennial kingdom. DT sees the glory of God as the underlying purpose of history. Hearing “well done good and faithful servant” is a strong motivation for committed discipleship in Dispensational Theology. Most

Free Grace theologians are dispensational in their philosophy of history and see the coming kingdom and the promise of eternal rewards as strong motivation for serving Christ as faithful disciples.

The question at hand is, “Does the Free Grace understanding of the scriptures lead to committed disciples or does Free Grace Theology encourage believers to live lax Christian lives?” That charge is levied against Free Grace Theology by both Calvinists and Arminians.

John MacArthur gives a good example of how this is stated. He writes, “The good news of

Christ has given way to the bad news of an insidious easy-believism that makes no moral demands on the lives of sinners… The church’s witness to the world has been sacrificed on the altar of cheap grace.”254 “Easy-believism” and “cheap grace” are favorite terms of those who oppose Free Grace Theology. In his book The Gospel According to Jesus, MacArthur uses the term “easy-believism eleven times! MacArthur followed with another book titled,

Hard To Believe! Matthew Bates, in his book Gospel Allegiance writes:

The free-grace movement is plagued by numerous errors. It promotes false grace because if fails to see that Paul, like his contemporaries, believed that graced required embodied reciprocation. It deploys a false gospel because it reduces its fullness down to Jesus’s death for sins. It encourages a false faith because it voids faith of its allegiance demand. And… it wrongly treats faith as if it were primarily a mental or psychological posture untainted by bodily actions.255

254 MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, xxi.

255 Bates, Gospel Allegiance, 146–47.

95

Bates also claims, “The free-grace position rests on definitions of the gospel, grace, and faith that cannot be defended from Scripture.”256 However, Bates offers no interaction with any

Free Grace defense of these ideas. He simply dismisses the Free Grace position. An example is his treatment of the Free Grace understanding of eternal rewards. He writes, “Those who perform well will receive eternal life and those who do not will get wrath and fury on the day of judgment. We are not permitted to say that this judgment according to works is merely about heavenly rewards rather than about eternal life itself.”257 Bates offers no interaction at all, he simply dismisses the position and says we are “not permitted” to make the claim. At times Bates makes pejorative statements about Free Grace Theology with no documentation to support his claims. He writes, “The free-grace position is roundly rejected by scholars today, certainly in part because of it naïve view of linguistics.”258

To the contrary, many in the Free Grace camp are excellent linguists. For example,

Zane Hodges was head of the Greek department at Dallas Theological Seminary and considered to be a New Testament Greek scholar. David Anderson is the president of Grace

School Of Theology and taught New Testament Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary. Fred

Chay and John Correia, in their book The Faith That Saves; The Nature of Faith in the New

Testament, do extensive grammatical and linguistic study on the Greek words for faith, even looking at all their occurrences in the Septuagint.259 Numerous other Free Grace writers

256 Bates, Gospel Allegiance, 151.

257 Ibid., 184.

258 Ibid., 122–23.

259 Chan and Correia, The Faith that Saves, 9–12, 22–53, Appendices 1, 2.

96 interact in great detail with the original text of the Bible.260 Another attack on Free Grace

Theology comes from Wayne Grudem in his book Free Grace Theology: 5 Ways it

Diminishes the Gospel. Grudem writes, “The Free Grace movement teaches a novel and distorted view of justification by faith alone, a view that was never taught by the great leaders of the Protestant Reformation.”261 Grudem then quotes a number of Calvinistic writings from the early days of the Reformation to prove his point. He concludes:

If Free Grace advocates are wrong in their understanding of justification by faith alone – that is, if their view is not the view that was taught by the leaders of the Reformation (as I have argued above), and if it is not the view of saving faith taught by the New Testament (as I will argue in subsequent chapters) – then the entire Free Grace movement is based on a mistake, and it should be abandoned.”262

Referring to the Free Grace understanding of repentance, Grudem writes, “My conclusion…is that the Free Grace movement preaches a weakened gospel because it avoids any call to people to repent of their sins. This is no minor matter, because repentance from sin is such an important part of the gospel…”263 Grudem believes the Free Grace message gives people false assurance. He writes, “a weakened gospel message, which lacks any call for people to repent from their sins, will result – and has resulted – in many unsaved people who think they are saved. But they are not.”264 He continues, “They still lack genuine repentance, and so they have never had genuine New Testament faith. They are not born

260 Many such as Jody Dillow, C. Gordon Olson, Charlie Bing, Elliott Johnson, Earl Radmacher, and Charles Ryrie, are listed in this paper’s Bibliography.

261 Grudem, Free Grace, 27.

262 Ibid., 39.

263 Ibid., 74.

264 Ibid., 77.

97 again. They are lost because of a weakened gospel message.”265 Randy Seiver accuses Free

Grace theologians of teaching “optional sanctification.” He writes, “The point of difference here is that so-called free grace teachers will contend that believers should grow in holiness and in obedience to Christ and Lordship teachers contend that true believers will grow in sanctification.”266

The charges are that Free Grace Theology:

1. Teaches “easy-believism” with no moral demands

2. Teaches “cheap grace”

3. Misunderstands salvation by grace alone

4. Does not call people to repent of their sins

5. Gives false assurance to those who are not really saved

6. Teaches “optional sanctification”

However, in my understanding of Free Grace theology, which I have taught for nearly forty- five years, none of the above charges are true. A brief response to each is due.

1. Free Grace teaches “easy-believism.” What does that actually mean? Must someone “believe hard” to be saved? Free Grace Theology actually teaches that salvation is offered as a gift and that faith is the simple response to that offer. It is not hard or easy, it is being persuaded of the truth of the gospel and believing in Jesus Christ. Moral demands are for the believer so that he or she can grow in grace and be well-pleasing to Christ. All Free

Grace teachers stress the moral commands of the Bible for the believer.

265 Grudem, Free Grace, 78.

266 Randy Seiver, Safe And Sound: A Comparative Study of Lordship and “Free Grace” Teaching (Cartago, Costa Rica: New Wine Press, 2019) page 1 of Chapter 7 (the book has no page numbers).

98

2. Free Grace teaches “cheap grace.” Grace is not cheap, for it cost Jesus His very life on a cross. Because of His finished work on the cross, He can now offer eternal life, not cheap, but free! That is amazing grace!

3. Free Grace misunderstands salvation by grace alone. Free Grace teachers do not misunderstand, they simply do not agree with the Reformed/Lordship definition of justification requiring works in the life of the believer to prove that justification has actually occurred.

4. Free Grace does not call people to repent of their sins. This all depends on the definition of repentance. What Free Grace theologians do not do is tell people they must stop sinning, clean up their lives, or promise to serve Jesus in order to be saved. We certainly do call people to repentance, just not in order to appease God and gain eternal life. That is His work and gift.

5. Free Grace gives false assurance. Actually, Free Grace teachers strive to make the gospel clear and to make sure people understand it. When a person understands that Jesus loves him and paid for his sins and offers him eternal life if he will believe in Him, and he believes, he should have assurance. That assurance is based on the promises of God.

6. Free Grace teaches “optional sanctification.” I have never taught and have never heard or read a Free Grace teacher who taught that sanctification is optional. We do teach that sanctification is not automatic and that it is not the test of true belief.

Does Free Grace Theology, taught consistently over time produce committed disciples? My experience is that it does, and that it does so as well, or better, than other evangelical discipleship programs based on Reformed or Arminian theologies. I will now present the methodology used to investigate this thesis.

Chapter 3

Methodology, Findings and Results

Methodology

This case study was conducted with two groups of people. The first group consisted of members who were are are part of the congregation at Emmanuel Baptist Church and, specifically, who were teenagers who graduated from high school during the fourteen years I have served as pastor. Fifty-nine young people fit this category. Attempts were made to contact the entire group although several were unreachable because of outdated contact information. Thirty-five, (57%), did respond and take the survey. This group was given a fifty-four question survey of which fifty questions were taken directly from four published surveys that relate to the age group targeted. The questions were used with written permission of the publishers. Appendix 1 records the results of this survey.

The second group consisted of any members or former members/attenders of

Emmanuel Baptist Church who were fifteen years of age or older at the time of survey administration. Ninety-seven people responded to this survey. This group was given a ten question survey. The questions attempted to address Free Grace theology and its effect on each individual respondent, and Appendix 2 records the results of this survey.

I am aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the case study method. Robert Yin writes, “case studies have traditionally been considered to be ‘soft’ research, possibly because investigators have not followed systematic procedures.” 1 Case study research is often hard to define. Sharan Merriam notes, “there is little consensus on what constitutes a

1 Robert K. Yin, Applied Social Research Methods, 4th ed., vol. 5, Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2009), 21.

99

100 case study or how one actually goes about doing this type of research.”2 John Creswell offers the following definition of case study research:

Case study research is a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and reports), and reports a case description and case-based themes.3

Criticisms of case study research lie in several areas. Yin writes, “Perhaps the greatest concern has been over the lack of rigor of case study research. Too many times, the case study investigator has been sloppy.”4 He continues, “A second common concern about case studies is that they provide little basis for scientific generalization. ‘How can you generalize from a single case?’ is a frequently heard question.”5 Another potential area of weakness can be the integrity of the investigator. Merriam notes, “Qualitative case studies are limited…by the sensitivity and integrity of the investigator.”6 However, case study research is well suited for examining complex social units. Tim Sensing writes, “Qualitative research is grounded in the social world of experience and seeks to make sense of lived experience.”7 Speaking of the strengths of case study research, Merriam writes,

Anchored in real-life situations, the case study results in a rich and holistic account of a phenomenon. It offers insights and illuminates meanings that expand its readers’ experiences. These insights can be construed as tentative hypothesis that help

2 Merriam, Case Study Research, 5.

3 John W. Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007), 73.

4 Yin, Case Study Research, 14.

5 Ibid., 15.

6 Merriam, Case Study Research, 33.

7 Tim Sensing, Qualitative Research: A Multi-Methods Approach to Projects for Doctor of Ministry Theses (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2011), 57.

101

structure future research; hence, case study plays an important role in advancing a field’s knowledge base.”8

A major question in case study research is: “How valid are the results?” Merriam notes, “Validity deals with the question of how one’s findings match reality. Do the findings capture what is really there?”9 The literature on case study research suggests several strategies to strengthen case study validity. One strategy is to use “triangulation.” Merriam defines triangulation as “…using multiple investigators, multiple sources of data, or multiple methods to confirm the emerging findings.”10 Another strategy listed by Merriam is “…long- term observation…or repeated observations …over a period of time in order to increase the validity of the findings.”11 It is also helpful for the researcher to clarify his or her biases at the outset of the study.

The reliability of the study is another important factor. Merriam writes, “Reliability refers to the extent to which one’s findings can be replicated…Reliability is problematic in the social sciences as a whole simply because human behavior is never static.”12 She continues, “Reliability and validity are inextricably linked in the conduct of research…Furthermore, findings will be considered more valid by some if repeated observations in the same study or replications of the entire study have produced the same

8 Merriam, Case Study Research, 32.

9 Ibid., 166.

10 Ibid., 168.

11 Ibid., 169.

12 Ibid., 170.

102 results.”13 It is important therefore to describe in detail how data were collected and what methods were used in the research. A goal of a case study, including this project, is to present a research method that other researchers can duplicate and apply to their specific situations.

To overcome the issue of generalization and validity of the results, the first survey, comparing the responses of those who attended Emmanuel Baptist Church as youth and have now graduated high school, to the responses of youth outside of Emmanuel Baptist Church but in the same age category, uses questions that are direct quotes or correlations to identical questions from national surveys. The questions are taken from the following four sources, and are used with permission of the publishers:

1. Barna, George. Growing True Disciples. Colorado Springs: WaterBrook Press, 2001.

2. Barna Trends 2018 : What's New and What's Next at the Intersection of Faith and Culture. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2017.

3. Kinnaman, David, Mark Matlock, and Aly Hawkins. Faith for Exiles: 5 Ways for a New Generation to Follow Jesus in Digital Babylon. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2019.

4. Smith, Christian, and Melinda L. Denton. Soul Searching : The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005

For investigative integrity and in an attempt to eliminate research bias, the surveys were accessed online and each respondent had a self-generated identifier. The anomy of their identity was attained by using a six digit code derived from the following questions:

1. The first two letters of your favorite color.

2. The month of your mother’s birth, 01 to 12.

3. The first two letters of your favorite song.

13 Merriam, Case Study Research, 170.

103

This coding procedure was effective and did not produce any duplicate results. Since my research also sought to better understand the effects of Free Grace Theology in the lives of current and former members of Emmanuel Baptist Church, I composed a specific survey for them to access this. The first question asked for the length of time individuals had attended

Emmanuel. The second question divided the respondents into age groups. The third question established their Christian background or lack thereof. The remaining questions addressed the respondent’s understanding of the distinctives of Free Grace Theology. The purpose of the survey was to evaluate, from the church members’ perspectives, what role Free Grace

Theology has played in their spiritual growth. At the end, each respondent was given the opportunity to make a comment.

Barna Group has numerous studies that assess the current level of discipleship in

American churches.14 However, the comparisons from my study of Emmanuel attenders will not correlate exactly to Barna’s research as my survey concentrated more specifically on the effects of Free Grace Theology in the lives of the study group. Nevertheless, there are some general comparisons that may be made. Also, several comments from members who have come from other theological backgrounds address how the Free Grace ministry of Emmanuel has affected their spiritual life.

Those who attended Emmanuel during their teenage/high school years and have now graduated are a group that are appropriate for comparison to the youth of mainline Protestant churches. Christian Smith and Melinda Denton write about the results of “The National

14 Barna Group resources can be assessed at https://www.barna.com/.

104

Survey of Youth and Religion” in their book Soul Searching.15 I will compare the youth of

Emmanuel who have graduated from high school with those studied in Smith and Denton’s research as to their professed spiritual walk and continuance in the faith. The church drop- out-rate by teenagers after graduating from high school is one area where an accurate and highly corresponding comparison can be made.

The issue of “rival interpretations” must also be addressed. Sensing defines rival interpretations as “…alternative explanations that may contradict what you expected or may at least explain the event differently.”16 For example, is there a Reformed or Arminian theological model of discipleship that claims to produce more committed disciples or that has done a similar study and compared the results to national averages? If the Free Grace model of discipleship presented in this study produces significant positive results, how would a different model, based on a different theological understanding, explain those results?

Reformed theologian Wayne Grudem argues that the Free Grace understanding of justification by faith alone is faulty and that “…the entire Free Grace movement is based on a mistake, and it should be abandoned.”17 He warns, “there is also a danger that many who attend Free Grace churches have given intellectual assent to all the right doctrines but have never come to trust in the actual person of Christ for their salvation.”18 However, if the Free

Grace model of discipleship presented in this study actually produces committed disciples at

15 Smith and Melinda L. Denton, Soul Searching : The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).

16 Sensing, Qualitative Research, 199.

17 Grudem, Free Grace Theology, 39.

18 Ibid., 118.

105 a rate higher than the national average, how would Grudem or others of a different theological perspective explain the results? Oddly, Grudem, after his many criticisms of Free

Grace Theology, writes, “I am thankful for the friendships and the exemplary Christian lives and ministries of numerous Free Grace supporters whom I have known. Many of them have, in spite of this distinctive teaching, developed very significant, kingdom-advancing ministries around the world.”19 Is the teaching of Free Grace Theology a hindrance or help in producing committed disciples? The case study presented in this project will help to answer that question.

This study was feasible because of the personal relationships I have established with those who were surveyed. My goal was to design the questions and evaluation process in such a way that correlations would be apparent when compared to the existing research and statistics. It was also my goal to design the survey in a way that promoted generalizability, allowing other ministers to use it as a tool to evaluate the effectiveness of their ministry, especially those in Free Grace church ministry.20

Findings and Results

I will begin by summarizing the results of each question on the Survey of Former

Emmanuel Youth (Appendix 1). The results of the Emmanuel Member/Attender Survey

(Appendix 2) will then be presented.

19 Grudem, Free Grace Theology, 144.

20 Free Grace church ministry includes the teaching of the Word of God and the actual ministries associated with that teaching. For example, at Emmanuel Baptist Church children are presented a clear gospel message in Sunday school and AWANA. Youth, and adult Sunday school material is chosen based on its biblical soundness and how the gospel is presented in the literature. In essence, every ministry is evaluated in light of the clear gospel of grace and the proper motivations for discipleship.

106

Survey of Former Emmanuel Youth

Questions two through twenty are taken from the book Soul Searching.21 This book presents the data collected by the National Study of Youth and Religion (NSYR) from July

2002 to March 2003.22 Trained project researchers “…conducted 267 in-depth, face-to-face interviews with a subsample of telephone survey respondents in 45 states.”23 Based on this data, the authors, Smith and Denton, use six religious traditions to evaluate the survey results.

In other words, the response percentages were calculated separately within each of those six traditions. Three of the traditions are evangelical and results from those traditions were the percentages used for comparison in this study: “Conservative Protestant (CP), Mainline

Protestant (MP), and Black Protestant (BP).”24 In each comparison I used the highest percentage(s) from the above groups, which was usually CP or BP. The actual questions and page numbers from the original survey are footnoted on the survey results in Appendix 1.

The responses are all listed as questions even though some are worded as statements that ask for the level of agreement.

Question 1. How many years did you attend Emmanuel before you graduated from high school? Thirty (88.2%) attended five or more years, four (8.8%) attended four or less, and one (2.9%) attended two years or less. There was no apparent difference between the

21 Smith and Denton, Soul Searching. The page numbers for each question are footnoted in Appendix 1.

22 Ibid., 6.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., 35.

107 respondent’s answers based on the time of attendance. This is most likely because every respondent had attended Emmanuel for at least two years.

Question 2. How often do you attend church? Twenty-six (74%) of the Emmanuel respondents now attend church once a week or more than once a week. In comparison, the highest group from the national survey, Conservative Protestants, abbreviated CP from here on, attend church 65% of the time in the same categories.

Question 3. How important is your faith in shaping your daily life? Thirty-one (88%) of Emmanuel respondents indicated either extremely important or very important as compared to 65% of the CP respondents on the national survey.

Question 4. How close do you feel to God? Twenty-nine (63%) of Emmanuel respondents indicated they felt extremely close or very close to God as compared to 49% of

BP and 48% of CP responders.

Question 5. Do you believe in the existence of angels? Thirty-three (94%) of

Emmanuel respondents indicated “definitely” as compared to 79% of CP and 76% of BP.

Question 6. Do you believe in divine miracles from God? Thirty-three (94%) of

Emmanuel respondents indicated “definitely” as compared to 77% of CP and 76% of BP.

Question 7. Do you believe in life after death? Thirty-two (91%) of Emmanuel respondents indicated “definitely” as compared to 62% of CP and 50% of BP.

Question 8. Do you believe in the existence of demons or evil spirits? Thirty-three

(94%) of Emmanuel responders indicated “definitely” as compared to 58% of CP and 48% of

BP.

Question 9. Have you made a personal commitment to live your life for God? Thirty- four (97%) of Emmanuel responders indicated “yes” as compared to79% of CP and 74% of

108

BP.

Question 10. Have you ever shared your faith with someone not of your faith? Thirty- three (94%) of Emmanuel responders indicated “yes” as compared to 79% of CP and 74% of

BP.

Question 11. Were you involved in youth group when attending Emmanuel? The comparative question is, “Ever involved in a religious youth group.” Thirty-five (100%) of

Emmanuel responders indicate either “very involved” (80%), or “occasionally involved”

(20%) as compared to 86% of CP, 86% of MP, and 76% of BP. In the “very involved” category, CP and MP youth involvement was higher than the Emmanuel youth, 86% for CP and MP youth as compared to 80% for Emmanuel youth.

Question 12. How often did you attend Sunday School when at Emmanuel? The comparative question is “Frequency of religious Sunday School or CCD attendance.”

Twenty-five (71%) of Emmanuel responders indicated either “every week” or “almost every week” as compared to 39% of CP and 35% of MP.

Question 13. Did you ever attend Ikthoos summer camp? The comparative question is, “Number of times attended religious summer camp as a camper.” Twenty-two (63%) indicated “yes” as compared to 54% of CP and 53% of MP.

Question 14. How often did you talk about God, the scriptures, prayer, or other religious or spiritual things at home with your family? Thirty (86%) of Emmanuel responders indicated either “every day,” “a few times a week,” or “about once a week” as compared to

60% of CP and 68% of BP.

Question 15. How often did the sermons at Emmanuel make you think about important things? Thirty-five (100%) of Emmanuel responders indicated “usually” or

109

“sometimes” as compared to 93% of CP, 91% of MP, and 90% of BP. In the “usually” only category CP (70%), MP (58%) and BP (63%) all were higher than the Emmanuel responders

(54%).

Question 16. If you attended youth group at Emmanuel, what was your evaluation of youth group? The comparative question is “Evaluation of youth group (asked of youth group- attenders only).” Twenty-nine (83%) of Emmanuel responders indicated “liked it very much” or “liked it somewhat” as compared to 92% of CP, 84% of MP, and 92% of BP.

Question 17. How good of a job did Emmanuel do in helping you explore/learn more about your interests in Christianity? Comparative question is “Job congregation has done helping teach what teen wants to learn about own religion.” Thirty-two (92%) of Emmanuel responders indicated “an excellent job” or “a fairly good job” as compared to 68% of CP and

69% of BP.

Question 18. How good were the people at Emmanuel in talking with you about serious issues, problems, and troubles? The comparative question is “How good congregation is for talking about serious issues, problems and troubles.” Twenty-one (60%) of Emmanuel responders indicated “very good” or “fairly good” as compared to 78% of CP, 70% of MP, and 69% of BP.

Question 19. Which of the following statements reflects your views on different religions? Thirty (85%) of Emmanuel responders indicated that “only one religion is true” as compared to 42% of CP, 26% of MP, and 31% of BP. Two (6%) of the Emmanuel responders indicated “many religions may be true” as compared to 48% of CP, 67% of MP, and 31% of BP.

Question 20. Do you believe that morals are relative, that there are no definite rights

110 and wrongs for everybody? Twenty-seven (77%) of Emmanuel responders checked “no, morals are not relative” as compared to 78% of Devoted, 54% Regulars, and 43%

Sporadics.25

Questions 21 through 31 are exact quotes from George Barna’s book, Growing True

Disciples.26 Concerning his methodology, Barna writes,

The interviews analyzed in this book were divided among born-again adults and non- born-again adults. The born-again adults were operationally defined as people who had made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their lives today and believe that after they die they will go to heaven only because they confessed their sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior.27

The results are labeled as to group and as to how they correspond to the Emmanuel attenders who answered the same questions. In most cases Barna only gives the results for those who either “strongly agree” or “strongly disagree.” The Emmanuel responses are given in the same categories along with the three other choices that were available on the Emmanuel survey. The questions quoted are footnoted on the survey results in Appendix 1.

Question 21. “God is the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect creator of the universe who still rules the world today.” Thirty-three (94%) of Emmanuel responders checked

“strongly agree” compared to 92% of all Christians surveyed.

Question 22. “There are some crimes or sins people commit that God cannot forgive.”

Thirty-three (94%) of Emmanuel responders checked “strongly disagree” as compared to

60% of all Christians surveyed.

25 These categories are explained in Appendix 1, page 134.

26 George Barna, Growing True Disciples (Colorado Springs: WaterBrook Press, 2005). Page numbers are documented for each question in Appendix 1.

27 Ibid., 169.

111

Question 23. “All people experience the same outcome after death, regardless of their spiritual beliefs.” Twenty-nine (83%) of Emmanuel responders indicated they “strongly disagree” as compared to 56% of all Christians surveyed.

Question 24. “It is important for you to personally experience spiritual growth.”

Twenty-nine (83%) of Emmanuel responders indicated they “strongly agree” as compared to

86% of all Christians surveyed.

Question 25. “It is more important to please God than to achieve success or acceptance.” Thirty (86%) of Emmanuel responders indicated they “strongly agree” as compared to 77% of all Christians surveyed.

Question 26. “All religious faiths teach the same basic principles.” Twenty-two

(63%) of Emmanuel responders indicated they “strongly disagree” as compared to 53% of all

Christians surveyed.

Question 27. “There is no such thing as absolute truth; two people could define truth in totally conflicting ways but both could still be correct.” Twenty-four (69%) of Emmanuel responders indicated they “strongly disagree” as compared to 33% of Christians and 24% of non-Christians surveyed.

Question 28. “Freedom means being able to do anything you want.” Twenty (57%) of

Emmanuel responders indicated they “strongly disagree” as compared to 65% of Christians and 58% of non-Christians.

Question 29. “People are basically good.” Twenty-three (66%) of Emmanuel responders indicated “no” as compared to 21% of Christians and 11% of non-Christians. In other words, 79% of Christians and 89% of non-Christians believe that people are basically good.

112

Question 30. “Abortion is morally wrong.” Thirty (85%) of Emmanuel responders answered “yes” as compared to 77% of Christians and 52% of non-Christians.

Question 31. “Whether it is acceptable to see pornographic videos or pictures is a matter of taste, not morality.” Twenty-nine (83%) of Emmanuel responders answered “no” as compared to 81% of Christians and 58% of non-Christians.

Questions 32 through 45 are taken from Kinnaman and Matlock, Faith for exiles: 5 ways for a new generation to follow Jesus in digital Babylon. 28 Kinnaman and Matlock identify four groups in their research:

1. Prodigals (Ex-Christians). Individuals who do not currently identify as Christian despite having attended a Protestant or Catholic church or having considered themselves to be a Christian as a child or teen.

2. Nomads (Unchurched). People who identify as Christian but have not attended church during the past month. The vast majority of nomads haven’t been involved with a church for six months or more.

3. Habitual Churchgoers. Those who describe themselves as Christian and who have attended church at least once in the past month, yet do not meet foundational core beliefs or behaviors associated with being an intentional, engaged disciple.

4. Resilient Disciples. Christ followers who (1) attend church at least monthly and engage with their church more than just attending worship services; (2) trust firmly in the authority of the Bible; (3) are committed to Jesus personally and affirm he was crucified and raised from the dead to conquer sin and death; and (4) express desire to transform the broader society as an outcome of their faith.”29

I only used the three categories that currently identify as Christian for my comparisons. I did not include the Prodigals as they do not currently identify as Christians and are not involved in any kind of Christian discipleship.

28 David Kinnaman, Mark Matlock, with Aly Hawkins, Faith for Exiles: 5 Ways for a New Generation to Follow Jesus in Digital Babylon (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2019), 42.

29 Ibid., 33.

113

Question 32. “I believe living in relationship with Jesus is the only way to find fulfillment in life.” Thirty-one (88%) of Emmanuel responders indicated “strongly agree” as compared with 89% ofResilient Disciples, 49% of Habitual Churchgoers, and 21% of

Nomads.

Question 33. My relationship with Jesus impacts the way I live my life every day.

Twenty-six (74%) indicated that they “strongly agree” as compared to 86% of Resilient

Disciples, 49% of Habitual Churchgoers, and 23% of Nomads. Another eight (23%) of

Emmanuel respondents indicated they “somewhat agree.”

Question 34. “Do you believe the Bible is the foundation of all teaching at

Emmanuel?” The corresponding question was, “The Bible is the foundation of all teaching at my church.” Thirty-three (94%) of Emmanuel responders indicated “strongly agree” compared to 83% of Resilient Disciples, 49% of Habitual Churchgoers, and 29% of Nomads.

Question 35. “Do you believe all human beings are broken and flawed because they have rebelled against God?” Twenty-seven (77%) of Emmanuel responders indicated they

“strongly agree” as compared to 60% of Resilient Disciples, 32% of Habitual Churchgoers, and 16% of Nomads.

Question 36. “God’s ultimate plan for the world is to set all things right and to renew all things.” Twenty-six (74%) of Emmanuel responders indicated they “strongly agree” compared to 78% of Resilient Disciples, 43% of Habitual Churchgoers, and 22% of Nomads.

Question 37. “I believe that Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead to conquer sin and death.” Thirty-four (97%) of Emmanuel responders indicated they “strongly agree” compared to 78% of Resilient Disciples, 43% of Habitual Churchgoers, and 33% of Nomads.

Question 38. “I am now connected to a community of Christians.” Thirty (86%) of

114

Emmanuel responders indicated “yes” compared to 82% of Resilient Disciples, 33% of

Habitual Churchgoers, and 7% of Nomads.

Question 39. “I admire the faith of my parents.” Thirty-one (88%) of Emmanuel respondents indicated “yes” compared to 72% of Resilient Disciples, 45% of Habitual

Churchgoers, and 29% of Nomads.

Question 40. “My friends help me to be a better person.” Twenty-one (66%) of

Emmanuel responders indicated “yes” compared to 67% of Resilient Disciples, 33% of

Habitual Churchgoers, and 7% of Nomads.

Question 41. “I often look to those who are older for advice when I need to make difficult decisions.” Twenty (57%) of Emmanuel responders indicated they “strongly agree” compared to 56% of Resilient Disciples, 37% of Habitual Churchgoers, and 25% of Nomads.

Question 42. “I have learned to view my gifts and passions as part of God’s calling.”

Twenty-two (63%) of Emmanuel responders indicated they “strongly agree” compared to

56% of Resilient Disciples, 35% of Habitual Churchgoers, and 21% of Nomads.

Question 43. “I had an adult mentor at Emmanuel other than the pastor or church staff.” Twenty-four (69%) of Emmanuel responders indicated “yes” compared to 39% of

Resilient Disciples, 13% of Habitual Churchgoers, and 8% of Nomads.

Question 44. “I want others to see Jesus reflected in me through my words and actions.” Thirty-two (91%) of Emmanuel responders indicated they “strongly agree” as compared to 90% of Resilient Disciples, 50% of Habitual Churchgoers, and 29% of Nomads.

Question 45. “A major part of my purpose in life is to serve others.” Thirty (86%) of

Emmanuel responders indicated “strongly agree” compared to 66% of Resilient Disciples,

35% of Habitual Churchgoers, and 20% of Nomads.

115

Questions 46 through 52 are taken from the book Barna Trends, edited by Roxanne

Stone.30 The varying comparison categories are explained before each question to which they apply. The categories that were compared for question 46 are as follows:

Millennials, those born between 1984 and 2002.

Generation/Gen X, those born between 1965 and 1983.

Boomers, those born between 1946 and 1964.

Elders, those born prior to 1946.31

Question 46. “Do you believe that many religions can lead to eternal life; that there is no ‘one true’ religion?” Thirty-five (100%) of Emmanuel responders indicated “no” compared to 87% of Elders, 81% of Boomers, 70% of Gen X, and 73% of Millennials.

For question 47, Barna defines practicing Christians as “…self-identified Christians who say their faith is very important in their lives and have attended a worship service within the past month.”32

Question 47. “Do you agree or disagree with this statement, ‘“Whatever is right for your life or works best for you is the only truth you can know.’” Twenty-eight (80%) of

Emmanuel responders indicated “strongly disagree” compared to 43% of all adults surveyed,

26% of Millennials, and 59% of Practicing Christians.

In question 48, the term “American adults” appears to refer to all adults in every category sampled in Barna’s research. In his methodology statistics table, the category “U.S.

30 Barna Trends, 2018. Page numbers are documented for each question in Appendix 1.

31 Ibid., 15.

32 Ibid., 13.

116 adults” appears several times and corresponds to the sample dates for that group.33

Question 48. “Is moral truth absolute or relative?” Twenty-eight (80%) of Emmanuel responders indicated that moral truth is “absolute” as compared with 35% of American

Adults.

Question 49. “How do you view the Bible?” Thirty-one (89%) of Emmanuel responders indicated “it is the actual Word of God with no errors” as compared to 38% of

American Adults.

Question 50. “What books do you consider sacred literature or Holy Books?” Thirty- five (100%) of Emmanuel responders indicated the Bible as compared to 82% of American

Adults. The Koran, Torah, and Book of Mormon were also choices. Eight (23%) of the

Emmanuel responders also indicated “the Torah.”

Question 51. “Do you believe all religions teach the same thing?” Twenty-five (71%) of Emmanuel responders indicated they “disagree strongly” as compared to 26% of

American Adults. Forty-nine percent of American Adults surveyed “agree strongly” or

“agree somewhat” that all religions teach the same thing.

Question 52. “How would you evaluate this statement, ‘“If a person is generally good or does enough good things for others during his or her life, he or she will earn a place in heaven.’” Twenty-eight (80%) of Emmanuel responders indicated they “strongly disagree” as compared to 27% of American Adults.

Questions 53 and 54 are not correlated to any of the national surveys but were included to evaluate the Emmanuel responder’s understanding of the promise of eternal life and his or her understanding of eternal security.

33 Barna Trends 2018, 216.

117

Question 53. “Concerning eternal life, which statement best describes you?” Thirty- five (100%) of the Emmanuel responders indicated “I am absolutely sure I have eternal life.”

Question 54. “If you have believed in Jesus and have received eternal life, do you think you can do anything to lose that life?” Thirty-three (94%) of the Emmanuel responders indicated “no.” One responder indicated “not sure,” and one responder indicated “yes.”

Question 55. “Do you have any additional thoughts or comments you would like to share?” Seven of the Emmanuel responders added the following comments. They are presented as written without grammar corrections.

Responder Ye12me. The language in some of these questions seems to still be skewed toward the assumption people who once identified as a christian are still identifying as christian. i.e. no alternative answer such as "I do not believe in eternal life"

Responder Gr01he. Our current church doesn't have Sunday school. I also went to Summit which helped me think through some of these questions.

Responder Bl06ni. I have always believed that Emmanuel has done a great job of teaching from the Bible. In my younger years, I wish that I had been more mature to listen intently to what Pastor Kenny taught about because now I understand what a great Bible teacher he is. My junior year of high school I started having doubts about my faith and asked pastor Kenny if we could talk about salvation. He made things so crystal clear and I was baptized shortly after. I am forever grateful for everything that Emmanuel has done for my family and I.

Responder Ye09gr. I said there is very little truth in religion because I believe religion is bondage. Christianity is a relationship—it is freedom–not a religion.

Responder Gr03ma. Through my time I loved how we had junior church and musicals as children. As I grew up working with the little ones and teaching and talking during VBS was a way to get a start of telling my faith. In my time with youth and big church and even my life outside of Emmanuel praise and worship has always been my biggest constant. I’ve always connected more with the words and the feel of the music and during hard times those songs and words help my faith and keeps me going.

118

Responder Gr11it. At Emmanuel, the Word was taught accurately and the leadership was very close with each other. However, there were very few people at Emmanuel that tried to know me personally and that invested in me and my spiritual well being. And they were not part of the leadership. It seemed like the majority of the teaching at Emmanuel was focused on being right instead of focusing on building a closer relationship with God. We need to know why we believe what we believe, but that only helps us if we use that security to get closer to God and to show His love to others. Without love, theology is worthless. 1 Corinthians 13.

Responder Pr07ra. Knowing the difference between justification and sanctification has helped me see through so many "Christianity" type books/programs/retreats/messages/small groups discussions that do not make that distinction. It's so simple and makes the Bible so much easier to understand and apply to daily life. I also am unimpressed with any pastor or teacher that doesn't seem to know how to teach the Bible verse by verse. Why not teach the Bible verse by verse or at least use Scripture to help interpret Scripture. I always appreciated Mr. Kenny's vulnerability sharing word associations to help us remember Greek words (like hermeneutics). And I will always think "satisfaction" when I read "propitiation." I feel confident talking about the Bible and how it is relevant in the world today.

Observations from the Youth Survey

A number of the questions on the survey may be grouped into specific categories. In every category, when averaged, the Emmanuel youth scored higher than the corresponding group on national surveys. A brief overview of seven broad categories will now be summarized.

1. The supernatural. Questions 5,6,7,8, and 37 concern beliefs about the supernatural.

Emmanuel responders score an average of 94% on all of these questions indicating a strong belief in the supernatural as taught in the Bible. In contrast, the highest scores for the most committed group in the national surveys averages 71% for the five questions.

2. God’s sovereign control. Questions 6, 21, and 36 address God’s sovereignty and control over His creation. 87% of Emmanuel responders indicated strong belief in God’s control as compared to 82% of the most committed in the national surveys.

119

3. Christianity as the truth. Questions 19, 23, 26, 46, and 51 address the question of

Christianity being the one true religion. Emmanuel responders averaged 80% on these five questions in favor of Christianity being the one true religion as compared to 49% in favor by the national survey groups.

4. Morals and absolutes. Questions 20, 27, 30, 31, 47, and 48 address beliefs about moral truth and absolute truth. When the answers are averaged, 79% of the Emmanuel responders indicated they believe that moral truth is absolute. In comparison, 58% of

Christians in the survey groups believe moral truth is absolute.

5. The Bible. Questions 49 and 50 address the inspiration of the Bible. When averaged, 95% of the Emmanuel responders view the Bible as the inspired Word of God with no errors. In contrast, only 60% of American adults view the Bible as fully inspired with no errors.

6. Personal commitment to spiritual growth. Questions 3, 4, 9, 24, 32, 33, 38, 42, 44, and 45 ask questions concerning spiritual growth and commitment to God. When these questions are averaged, 79% of Emmanuel responders express commitment to spiritual growth as compared to 73% in the most committed groups of national survey responders.

7. Man’s fallen nature. Questions 29 and 35 address the nature of man. When averaged, 72% of Emmanuel responders see man as flawed in contrast to 41% of Christians surveyed.

8. Eternal life. Questions 52, 53, and 54 address going to heaven and receiving eternal life. Twenty percent of Emmanuel respondents indicated works could earn a person a place in heaven while 73% of American adults believed works could earn a person a place in heaven. There were no corresponding direct correlations to questions 53 and 54 concerning

120 eternal life and the assurance of eternal life, however, 100% of Emmanuel responders indicated, “I am absolutely sure I have eternal life.” When asked if there was anything they could do to lose eternal life, 94% responded “no.”

It is obvious from the survey results that the youth of Emmanuel score well above other Christian youth in all the aforementioned areas. The charge that Free Grace Theology teaches moral laxity or uncommitted disciples is not validated by this survey.

Emmanuel Member/Attender Survey

The Emmanuel Member/Attender Survey was designed for any Emmanuel member or attender, current or former, fifteen years of age or older. The survey asks specific questions that relate to Free Grace Theology as taught at Emmanuel. Appendix 2 presents the survey results and the testimonies from the responders as to how Free Grace teaching at

Emmanuel has impacted their lives. It consists of two demographic questions (length of time of attendance and age group), ten specific questions with multiple choice answers, and the opportunity at the end of the survey to comment. Ninety-seven people responded to this survey. Following is a summary of the responses to each question.

Demographic question one. “How many years have you or did you attend

Emmanuel?” Eighty-two of the responders (84.5%) indicated they had attended four or more years. Fifteen of the responders (15.4%) had attended three, two, or one year or less. This demographic shows that the large majority of the responders have attended Emmanuel long enough to hear the Free Grace Theology taught on a regular basis at the church.

Demographic question two. “What is your age group?” Forty-eight (50%) of responders are above fifty in age. The next largest age group is thirty-one to forty consisting of twenty responders (20.8%). Twelve responders (12.5%) are in the forty-one to fifty age

121 group, eleven responders (11.5%) are in the twenty-one to thirty age group, and five (5.2%) are in the fifteen to twenty age group.

Question 1. “Did you grow up in a Christian home?” Eighty-two (84.5%) of the responders grew up in a Christian home. Fifteen (15.5%) did not grow up in a Christian home.

Question 2. “Did you believe in Jesus as a child or an adult?” Eighty-three (85.6%) of the responders believed in Jesus when they were children. Fourteen (14.4%) believed in

Jesus when they were adults.

Question 3. “Do you understand the basics of Free Grace teaching that eternal life is a gift you receive by faith in Christ alone, and that it is a permanent possession, secured by

God’s grace?” Ninety-six (99%) of the responders indicated that they understand the basics of Free Grace teaching. One responder (1%) indicated that they did not.

Question 4. “Do you know for certain that you have eternal life and that it is based on faith alone in Christ alone?” Ninety-six (99%) of the responders indicated that they knew for certain they had eternal life. One (1%) indicated that he or she was not sure.

Question 5. “If you did not grow up under Free Grace teaching, has Emmanuel's teaching made a positive difference in how you live your daily life?” Sixty-two (73.8%) indicated “very much so.” Eighteen (21.4%) indicated “most of the time.” Four (4.8%) indicated “sometimes.”

Question 6. “Because the certainty of eternal life is taught in Free Grace Theology, some accuse Free Grace teaching as promoting sin in the believer's life. What has been your experience?” Ninety-three (95.9%) of the responders indicated, “understanding God's free grace in salvation has motivated me to pursue a deeper walk with God.” Four (4.1%)

122 indicated, “understanding God's free grace in salvation has made no real difference in my walk with God.”

Question 7. “Free Grace Theology teaches a difference between the Judgment Seat of

Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment. Do you understand the difference in these judgments?” Seventy-eight (80.4%) indicated “yes.” Four (4.1%) indicated “no,” and fifteen

(15.5%) indicated “not sure.”

Question 8. “Does the teaching of eternal rewards and the possibility of becoming a joint heir with Christ motivate you to serve Him?” Eighty-three (85.6%) indicated “yes.”

Eight (8.2%) indicated “no,” and six (6.2%) indicated “not sure.”

Question 9. “Do you think the Free Grace distinction between initial justification

(receiving eternal life) and sanctification (living the Christian life) has helped you in your understanding of the Bible?” Ninety-five (98%) indicated “yes.” One (1%) indicated “no,” and one (1%) indicated “not sure.”

Question 10. If you came to Emmanuel from a church or theological background that did not teach Free Grace, has Free Grace Theology made a difference in your walk with

God?” Thirty (30.9%) indicated, “I grew up in a Free Grace church.” Of the responders coming from a background that did not teach Free Grace Theology, sixty (92%) indicated

“yes,” Free Grace has made a difference in their walk with God. Three (4.6%) indicated “no” and two (3.2%) indicated “not sure.”

Question 11. “Optional: Would you briefly share your thoughts on how the teaching at Emmanuel has impacted your life, either positively or negatively.” Sixty of the responders added comments. All of the responses are available in Appendix 2.

123

Observations from the Emmanuel/Attender Survey

Of the responders who have attended Emmanuel the least amount of time, four for one year or less and three for two years or less, all indicated a strong understanding of Free

Grace Theology. All seven indicated that understanding God’s free grace in salvation had motivated them to pursue a deeper walk with God. Three of the seven left a comment.

Responder Aq03bi, who had attended for two years or less wrote, “The teaching at

Emmanuel has helped me because I’m taught and not preached at. The Word judges me and helps me to see Truth and it corrects me.” Responder Gr03mo who also had attended two years or less wrote, “Due to the clarity of the gospel at Emmanuel, it has revealed to me the murkiness of the ways that most churches present the gospel and it has made me more critical of the types of sermons that I listen to and their impact on me.” Responder Bl06ba who had attended one year or less wrote, “Since attending Emmanuel, my understanding and knowledge of the bible has definitely broadened and deepened.”

Of the fifteen responders who did not grow up in a Christian home, nine did not trust

Christ until they were adults. All of the responders indicated that understanding God’s free grace in salvation had motivated them to pursue a deeper walk with God. Concerning the motivation given by eternal rewards and the possibility of joint heirship with Christ, two responders indicated that this teaching did not motivate them, and three responders indicated that they were not sure if this teaching motivated them. Eleven of the responders in this group left the following comments:

Responder Pi10ag. Before EBC, I 'believed' my salvation was 'by faith in Christ alone through grace alone;' I just didn't 'understand' this concept as I now do. Understanding this even to the degree I now do is a great motivation for me to serve Him more each day. He is worthy of all of me and of all of my abilities.

124

Responder Ye10am. The teaching at Emmanuel has given me a solid foundation of biblical principles for me to life day to day.

Responder Bl02it. From the Moment of believing in Christ I have never once doubted my forever relationship with my Heavenly Father!

Responder (no code given). It changed my faulty view of God as a harsh task master who was waiting for me to fail to understanding He is full of both truth and grace and for me, not waiting for me to fail.

Responder Ma09da. Emmanuel was probably the first evangelical church I attended where the pastor did not have to raise his voice to make a point. On the other hand, however, I felt like an outsider because most of Emmanuel’s members graduated from MSU and I did not. I also had a problem with one member claiming to speak for the entire Emmanuel family about political views.

Responder (no code given). By pointing out, through consistent teaching, the freedom we have in Christ through His sacrifice for our sake, I feel compelled to be grateful, to do all I can to further His Kingdom.

Responder Bl10iw2. The Free Grace teaching of Emmanuel has given me security in my salvation, which I had never had before!

Responder Re03br. Free gift of salvation gave me sense of eternal security to live and serve Jesus with confidence.

Responder Ye08yo. It was the beginning of understanding grace. I continue to grow in it. On the other side, it has helped me to be cautious about judging others, to show compassion, and to understand no one church or teacher has all the answers (they examined the teaching ... Berea )

Responder Bl06am. Clear understanding of salvation and grace.

Responder Bl01re. Although my understanding of theology and salvation deepened at Emmanuel, my life was not impacted deeply because of a lack of emphasis on Christian walk. There is not an emphasis on John 13:34-35, and the effects of this are evident.

125

With the exception of responder Bl01re who questioned the Free Grace teaching of

Emmanuel in relation to emphasis on the Christian walk, this group was overwhelming positive about the effects of Free Grace teaching in their lives.

Question 6 correlates specifically to the thesis of this paper. The idea that Free Grace

Theology somehow promotes lax living or sin in the believer’s life was not validated by the survey results. Ninety-six percent of the responders indicated that understanding God’s free grace in salvation had motivated them to pursue a deeper walk with God. The following is a sample of the comments received that verify this finding:

Responder Gr08am. The clear teaching of the grace of God always leads to positive results when the individual believes those truths. To understand that God accepts me the way I am, loves me unconditionally, never leaves me nor forsakes me, while working in my life that which brings pleasure to Himself and my well-being, brings about the greatest joy and motivation to live for Him.

Responder Or10yo. The assurance of my salvation through faith alone in Christ alone takes away the worry and uncertainty of my salvation. It frees me seek a deeper walk with the Lord, knowing my mistakes (sins) have been forgiven and don’t impact my eternal destination. It also overwhelms me with the feeling of God’s love and a desire to return that love.

Responder Bl03st. Free Grace teaching has made a tremendous impact on my life. Before this teaching I believed in Jesus, however I had no assurance at all that I was truly saved. Not having this assurance caused me to constantly question my salvation which in turn led me into trying to earn it based on my behavior. This was a terrible way to live as a child of God and I'm so very thankful that I now know the difference between justification and sanctification. Although the strength of my walk with the Lord still does vary from time to time due to the "old man" within, I can clearly see a difference in the person I am today vs the person I used to be.

Responder Blo7he. It has inspired me to pursue a closer walk with God.

Responder Re04cl.

126

Having grown up in a "Lordship" church and a performance-oriented home, I was constantly fearful and doubtful about my relationship with God. Understanding grace and how it works both in eternal salvation and earthly life has allowed me to be less fearful and to serve Him and other people with joy.

Responder Ye09ci. I grew up in a works based church - Arminian (learned that word at Emmanuel too). I lived in constant defeat and fear that my good would not be good enough and that would cause me to end up in Hell. Living that way is Hell (because I had no relationship with my God - actually distanced myself from Him with meager attempts to hide and not address the imperfections (sin) in my life). There was no relief - confession brought fleeting salve, but true relief - living in the blood of Jesus was nowhere - nor was it taught in my church or home. When the bondage of sin was truly broken for me, was the first time free grace was understood. I learned verses like Romans 3:23, 6:23, 8:3 - the whole book of John - Living Water is amazing! We had "7 steps to salvation" in my church - all verses taken out of context as related to the importance placed on them as a path to heaven. We took the Foundations in Grace class and while I had never heard of sanctification as a separate entity from heaven's gate. It was all about being good enough to get in. Which- hello! no one is!!!! And that totally demeans the cross. The work has already been done. I have bloomed in relationship and getting close to God, rather than being a bond servant of self and hiding from Him.

Responder Gr06an. Free grace has given me security in my relationship with Christ and the teaching at Emmanuel has allowed me to effectively share this with others. My relationship with God has deepened and grown and I am forever grateful for Pastor Kenny and his commitment to sharing this.

These comments, and many more given in the survey (Appendix 2), verify that Free Grace

Theology, taught consistently does indeed produce committed disciples.