What Gospel is That?

This article is the second I've written today. It was written quickly so the grammar is probably very poor in places.

Today I noticed an article authored by Ken Neff and originally published by the Grace Evangelical Society(GES) in 2009 duplicated and republished by another organization.  The article is entitled "What Is the Free-Grace Gospel?"*UPDATE* link fixed as of 8 Aug 2012 (capitalized as authored).  This article is from the March-April 2009 edition of the GES publication "Grace in Focus."  There are a number of things of interest in the article, not the least of which is the description of the early controversy over the new GES doctrine which they call "The Free-Grace Gospel" but which is more commonly called "The Crossless Gospel" or "Promise Only Gospel." I didn't become aware of this controversy myself until 2007. Here is what Neff says about the early days of this doctrine:

There has been debate raging in the Free Grace (FG) community for several years. And it concerns something surprising: the gospel. In 1999 Zane Hodges gave a two-part message at the GES National Conference entitled, “How to Lead a Person to Christ.” Those messages were published in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (JOTGES) in Autumn 2000 and Spring 2001. 

Hodges indicated that the saving message is found in the Fourth Gospel, John (cf. John 20:30-31), with John 3:16 and 6:47 stating that all who merely believe in Jesus have eternal life. According to Hodges, Christ and His promise of eternal life is the only necessary content required to believe at conversion. 

I am not aware of anyone ever previously having preached or believed such a doctrine as presented by Zane Hodges at the GES National Conference in 1999.  One may find Hodges' teaching given at that conference here: How to Lead People to Christ Part 1. I am not alone in being unable to find any reference to any such view in the history of the Church. Dr. Fred Lybrand, while he was still President of The Free Grace Alliance(FGA), authored a letter about the controversy:  Fred Lybrand's Open Letter "Re: The GES Gospel (AKA The Crossless or Promise Only Gospel)" This letter was also authored in 2009, April 14th to be exact. 

In the letter to Dr. Fred Chay, the then incoming and current FGA President,  Lybrand says:

My suspicion is that many folks involved with the Grace Evangelical Society are simply unaware (as was I) that profound doctrinal shifts in the organization have occurred since 1999, culminating in sweeping doctrinal changes in their Statement (August 2005) and the recent attacks (the Hydra-headed article and the review of JB Hixson’s book) against those who disagree with the GES reformulation of The Gospel of Grace.

And having discussed these sweeping changes, and the reformulation of the Gospel of Grace Lybrand says:

To my knowledge, no one has ever held this view in the history of Christianity.

The new doctrine which Hodges presented at the 1999 GES National Conference has been dismantled and discredited in several venues. Lybrand's letter, linked above, is probably the most graceful and generous refutation to be found. Even still the GES still presents the doctrine as true, and GES followers seemingly still present it as true. The article "What Is the Free-Grace Gospel" is an apologetic for the idea that one can believe the Gospel of the Christ declared by Paul in 1Cor 15:1-11 and yet not be saved.  Does this article actually establish such a fact though? Could such an assertion be true, even if perhaps the article does not establish it? Let's find out!

After a brief overview of Hodges' doctrine, Neff states:

However, not all within FG circles found these arguments convincing. Some in the FGA disagree with Hodges’ claim that the saving message has not changed since John’s Gospel. They point to progressive revelation and say that since Calvary and the empty tomb, Jesus’ substitutionary death and bodily resurrection must be included in the gospel message and must be believed for anyone to receive eternal life. 

This is what Neff intended to argue against in 2009 while he was writing. His first shot is a description of how Hodges answered. That requiring belief in the crosswork of Christ is a "legalist gospel" and that the real issue is how much evidence, if any, a person needs to believe concerning Christ and His works in order to be born again. Then Neff states his position, using some of his and some of Hodges' words.

Arguing from 1 Cor 15:1–8, some have supported a progressive concept of the good news. In his recent Hydra article (Grace in Focus, Sept-Oct 2008), Hodges counters that that particular text indicates eight items are associated with the good news. He writes:  

Beyond question, all of these truths are of infinite importance. But Jesus never conditioned eternal life on believing any of them…In fact one could believe all eight of the truths listed above and not yet be born again. Believing all these truths is not the same as believing in Jesus for eternal life [emphasis his].  

One could easily get distracted from Neff's main point and bring up passages like John 8 where the Lord, speaking of His death and resurrection, and His deity says that unless you believe that He is Who He says He is you will die in your sins. Or John 6 where we read that unless you eat of His flesh, and drink of His Blood you have no life in you, but that if you do that you will have Eternal Life. Or that one must see their sins judged in Him as He is lifted up on the cross like the serpent in the wilderness. John 3. One could look at the passage that the GES, and Neff, hang their doctrinal hat on. John 20:30-31 and see that "these things" have been written that the reader would believe Christ is the Christ, the Son of God, and having believed this ABOUT Him the reader would have Eternal Life. Not "believing in Jesus for eternal life." So, obviously one could refute Hodges' doctrine all over again, but one could do so and yet still miss the point of Neff's article which I believe we will discover is a bold attack on the Gospel of the Christ.

Neff has in fact ever so subtlety developed a straw-man argument. When Paul describes someone having saving faith he goes back to Abram who "was assured" by God's word (about the Messiah) and this was accounted as righteousness. Rom 4:1-8 ; Gen 15:6 Paul doesn't talk about "believing the facts" but being assured by the message. Of course there is a huge difference. What one might discover, is that when Paul discusses how one is justified before God, there is nothing in his argument about "believing in Jesus for eternal life." Instead Paul focuses on the guilty man being accounted as righteous in spite of his terrible sin. Neff cleverly avoids the real issue, and the real solution and instead develops a Straw-Man he thinks he can easily knock down.

Neff then attempts to establish areas of agreement between his fictionalized group of detractors, and the GES. He states:

Both sides say that it is necessary to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. 

Yet both sides do not agree on this. His own position is that one does not "believe IN JESUS CHRIST" but that:

Hodges and GES says that anyone who simply believes in Jesus for eternal life has it, regardless of whether he understands and believes how it is that Jesus is able to fulfill this promise. 

They say one must "believe in Jesus for eternal life" or in other areas "Believe Jesus for Eternal Life." Nothing about Him being Lord (Deity), or Christ. Both of which are required by their favorite proof-texts. Jn 20:30-31, and Acts 16:31

One side, even with its fictional doctrine created by Neff, believes that one must believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and because of that belief God will give the person Eternal Life, and the other side says that one believes "Jesus for eternal life". Not believing in the person, but believing in the perceived promise of eternal life for anyone who believes Him for it. Neff's assertions aside, there is no actual area of agreement here.

With respect to disagreement Neff says the following:

Some in the FGA say that one must not only believe in Jesus for eternal life, but he must also believe in the deity of Christ, in His death on the cross (understood specifically in terms of substitutionary atonement), and in His bodily resurrection on the third day. Absent these beliefs, a person who believes in Jesus and Him alone for eternal life is on his way to hell according to some in FG circles. 

Personally I would not say that one must believe (in) Jesus for eternal life, and also believe the Gospel. I would say that when one Believes the Gospel they are given Eternal Life. 1Cor 15:1-2 ; Acts 18:8 ; Gal 3:2 ; Eph 1:13-14 ; Rom 1:16 ; Acts 16:29-34 ; Jn 20:30-31... and so on.

Here is what the FGA has to say in their membership covenant.

The sole means of receiving the free gift of eternal life is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose substitutionary death on the cross fully satisfied the requirement for our justification.

Having misrepresented belief in Christ as portrayed by Paul in the Corinthians having received the Gospel, and misrepresenting the FGA's position, Neff then goes on to make some "observations" about his fabricated detractors' doctrine. He says:

It Seems Arbitrary to Say That Some, But Not All, of the Good News Must Be Believed. 

and

As a result, the necessity of picking and choosing the four or five or six items from some ten or more as absolute essential requirements for salvation causes one to pose and ponder—“Which ones?” 

and

Schliesmann’s essential elements of the Gospel are his required checklist and conditions for initial salvation. For him, nothing less can be the gospel. 

and

Tom Stegall proposes a different set of essentials, in his case, five: 

and

J. B. Hixson also has five essentials, but not the same five. Jonathan Perreault has six essentials. 

and finally

It seems that there is as yet no consensus as to what the essentials are or even how many there are. 

All of this appears to be stated in an attempt to discredit the view that one must believe the Gospel of the Christ in order to be saved by showing that several (albeit high profile) persons disagree one which "facts" are essential to be believed. This of course is bait for distraction again. I will but nibble at the hook a bit anyway.

Paul declares the Gospel which he preached to the Corinthians, that they received and were saved by, which all the Apostles preached and the Corinthians believed. 1Cor 15:1-2 ; Acts 18:8 ; 1Cor 15:11 These passages, and the others I've cited above state that believing the Gospel of the Christ results in Eternal Life. It does not matter what disagreements other men have. Let's continue with Neff's argument however.

We come to something on which I find that I largely agree with Neff on. He makes the following "observation":

Evidence That Can Lead to Saving Faith Is Not the Object of Saving Faith. The “content-of-faith” terminology is, in fact, a misnomer. Faith is only a persuasion. Faith is merely a realization of the truthfulness of a proposition that is proven by evidence. Evidence, therefore, is the basis of faith. 

In the case of saving faith, it is more than mere "persuasion" of something being true but actual "assurance" as a result of something being true. Gen 15:6 ; Rom 4:16-22 Some years ago I wrote a series of posts called "Identity" which were focused on God's emphasis on His Identity throughout the Scriptures. One of the many, many, problems with the GES doctrine is that they don't identify who this "Jesus" is that one is supposedly to "believe for eternal life."

John 20:30-31 says that if one believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God they will have Eternal Life. Rom 1:1-4 Paul talks about his call to preach the Gospel which identifies Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God ² which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, ³ concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, ⁴ and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

Notice, that just like John 19 & 20 are completely focused on Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and these things are written so that one will believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, so is Paul's Gospel focused on identifying this same Jesus. It is Christ's having been raised from the dead that identifies Him as the Son of God.

Likewise His crosswork having been accomplished "in accordance with the Scriptures" reveals He is the Christ.

Yet still we have not gotten to the thrust of Neff's argument. All of this so far has been nothing but distraction. He then briefly returns to his argument:

The “legalistic-gospel” proponents argue the evidence that must be believed concerns Jesus, His works, and His promise of eternal life—though they have at least four different lists; while “crossless-gospel” proponents argue it doesn’t really matter what evidence convinces a person, but that anyone who believes in Jesus has eternal life. 

John in his evangelistic letter, which is often called "God's Gospel Tract" and otherwise known (somewhat incorrectly) as "The Gospel of John" states the following in John 20:30-31

³⁰ And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; ³¹ but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

This is immediately after two chapters dealing with the death burial and resurrection of Christ. There are "many other signs" but these signs are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing (that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God) you may have life in His name.

John chose which facts to present. His goal was not to convince you that Jesus guarantees Eternal Life for any who "believe Him for it." John's goal was to present particular evidence that would demonstrate that He is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing this you would have Eternal Life.

Under the title of "Is The Gospel of John Really Outdated?" Neff takes another shot at a Straw-Man argument, and knocks the Straw-Man down by stating:

However, when penning his Gospel many years after Christ’s death and resurrection, John doesn’t place an asterisk anywhere to indicate that the saving message had actually changed since Christ’s time on earth. 

Who is saying that the message changed? John clearly demonstrates the same Gospel that Paul declared. In fact Paul tells us that John preached the very same Gospel. 1Cor 15:11

After all of this, I need to be reminded of what Neff is arguing against. So let's quote him from the beginning again.

Beyond question, all of these truths (the eight truths the GES recognizes in 1Cor 15:1-8) are of infinite importance. But Jesus never conditioned eternal life on believing any of them…In fact one could believe all eight of the truths listed above and not yet be born again. Believing all these truths is not the same as believing in Jesus for eternal life [emphasis his].  

On the final page of his article, under the title "From One Man's Perspective" Neff finally gives his actual argument. I have quoted a great deal from this article, but I have also left much of it out. I've done my level best to maintain Neff's context. However, since this passage is his actual argument I wish to quote it here in full.

I grew up the Mormon Church and before I was born again I believed in Jesus. In fact, I believed in His deity, His virgin birth, His miracles as proof of his deity, His sinless life, His death on the cross for my sins, His burial, His bodily resurrection on the third day, His ascension to heaven, His preparation of a place for His own, and His birth in Bethlehem.  

But as Hodges indicated, “one could believe all…of the truths listed above and not yet be born again.” I am proof of that fact.  

However, due to the ministry of a good friend and Campus Crusade in my life, I began to reevaluate the faith-works teaching of the Mormon Church. I remember, like it was yesterday, driving my Rambler back to the University on a Sunday evening. Suddenly I realized what my friend had said was true. Jesus alone, without my help, provides eternal life on the basis of faith alone. That evening, I believed in Jesus. I had previously believed many true things about Jesus, but only then did I believe in Jesus, and in Him alone, for eternal life.  

Requiring more than what is required is a type a legalism. I believe that is the heart of Hodges’ appeal. The issue is not a check-off list, but a Person. It’s captured in the saying, “You can know all about Him, but not know Him.” Reformed Theology misuses this saying. However, it communicates the reality of the current debate between the “legalistic-gospel” camp and the “crossless-gospel” camp. At least, that is how I see it. 

Do you notice the subtle usage of his Straw-Man argument, previously developed at the beginning, here?

He says that he believed many of the "facts" Paul includes as part of his Gospel, and some other facts. He states emphatically "But as Hodges indicated, "one could believe all... of the truths listed above and not yet be born again." I am proof of that fact." His straw-man is fully revealed however when he states "Suddenly I realized what my friend had said was true. Jesus alone, without my help, provides eternal life on the basis of faith alone." He doesn't stop to acknowledge the Straw-Man however, and I'm convinced there will be some GES followers who have read all this way and may as yet not seen what it is. He seals his argument with "Requiring more than what is required is a type a legalism. I believe that is the heart of Hodges’ appeal. The issue is not a check-off list, but a Person. It’s captured in the saying, “You can know all about Him, but not know Him.” " In his mind he has defeated the detractors he has invented.

However, no one is saying that if one believes the facts of the Gospel that they will be saved. One must receive the Gospel as Abram received the promise from God. You are assured in Him. Gen 15:6 ; Rom 4:1-22

Neff says that he was not saved while he was a Mormon. Yet he claims to have believed in Jesus. Does not Jesus Himself say "MOST ASSUREDLY he who believes in Me has Eternal Life"? John 6:47 So what is the problem? I'll tell you there were two problems. First he was believing in the wrong Jesus. The Jesus the Mormons have fashioned for themselves. Second, he was not assured because of those "facts" that he claimed to believe. He thought he still had to work. He hadn't had "faith in Jesus alone" so he had not "received" the Gospel. 1Cor 15:1 He believed in faith (in a fake Jesus) plus works. Of course he was not saved. He had not believed the Gospel, even though he claims to have believed several of the facts (not all, he missed the "in accordance with the Scriptures" part for example) that are part of the Gospel.

Because he had a faith (in a made up Jesus) + works religion he thinks this disproves the doctrine that one must believe the Gospel of the Christ as declared by Paul. He makes his argument by subtly changing the doctrine he is arguing against into a false doctrine which he thinks he can knock down without anyone noticing the difference.

Sorry Neff, I noticed. Even if other people haven't, I have. I also know that no matter how many have missed it, I am far from alone in this observation. This article was unconvincing in 2009, when last I read it, and it remains so even to this day. It should have faded into history, yet I hope that by giving this attack on the Gospel exposure it will somehow help others also to see what was really going on with it.

There is a reason why no one ever before the GES in 1999 ever held to this view, and why since 2009 it has all but disappeared from discussion. I suggest that it is unwise to promote this view given that it has been refuted in every way imaginable.

I don't know what this so-called "Free-Grace Gospel" is, I have believed and do preach the Gospel of the Christ. Such is the only Gospel I will preach. I have neither authority, nor freedom to preach any other.

That is SO 2008....

After a few months of attending a house church I found out something shocking, or it finally became clear to me, or I finally opened my eyes, or I finally let myself hear what they were saying... or something! Whatever it was, I suddenly felt like I must have been going 88 Miles Per Hour because what I finally heard sounded like a repeat of the ridiculously lame, and intellectually insulting, arguments of the Grace Evangelical Society(GES) from about 2008. Update 16Apr2012: OK I can admit that this sentence is harsh. However, it is in response to being berated with the same esigesical arguments that the GES used years ago for 5 days straight.

Now I've been baited in a few ways to write an article about this assembly's doctrine. But why would I?

"The Gospel in this dispensation is to believe Jesus for Eternal Life" is the doctrine that the GES set ablaze in the Free Grace movement from 2007-9. Sure there are quotes from before that, and some small discussion after that but that is the period when the discussion was being had. Not only that but in reality the doctrine was ridiculous when it was presented by the GES and it hasn't gotten any better with age.

The doctrine failed any and every test against Scripture back then so why would anyone devote time to it now?

If anyone is truly interested in what was discussed back then these things may well be helpful:

UPDATE: Lou has posted an archived article from 2010 "Vigilance Regarding the Truth of the Gospel: Reengaging the Heresy of the GES “Crossless” Gospel, Part 1"

1. Fred Lybrand's Open Letter "Re: The GES Gospel (AKA The Crossless or Promise Only Gospel)"

2. Thomas L. Stegall's exhaustive book The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical Response to the Crossless Gospel

3. Search Google for "The Crossless Gospel"

An Open Letter From The President Of The FGA

*Edit: Brother Lybrand has offered to answer any questions we might have. I've copied his comment at the bottom of this post.

The (future) out-going president of the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) has released a very important open letter to the incoming president.

This letter deals with the problem of the Grace Evangelical Society's (GES) reductionist message commonly called the "Crossless Gospel" or "Promise Only Gospel." I was glad to read the official announcement from the FGA distancing themselves from the GES. Yesterday however out-going president Fred R. Lybrand DMin released a letter that contains with clarity why the FGA must remain separated from the GES.

Many people in Reformed Theology circles dismiss conversation with those in Free Grace Theology circles because of the lack of scholarship shown by GES influenced theologians. I'm thankful for this clear statement. I will now share the opening of this letter. For the complete letter please visit Lou's blog, In Defense Of The Gospel.

Released: 14 April 2009

To: Fred Chay, PhD., President Elect, Free Grace Alliance

CC: The Community of Free Grace Advocates Worldwide, for the public

From: Fred R. Lybrand, DMin, President, Free Grace Alliance

Re: The GES Gospel (aka - the ‘Crossless’ or ‘Promise-only’ Gospel)

Dear Dr. Chay,

Fred, at your request I am finally, and reluctantly, addressing the issue concerning the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) and the ‘crossless gospel’, so called. I say ‘so called’ because I would name it the GES Gospel. I am not aware of it being held by anyone, anywhere, in history; it is solely owned and promoted by GES. Of course, I am sure that when most GES folks present the gospel, they include a mention of Christ’s death and resurrection. However, when one asks, “What must one believe to be saved?” --- Then the cross and resurrection are clearly unnecessary pieces of information for saving faith and eternal salvation in the GES Gospel view. And as any objective person can see, eventually this line of thinking will invade their presentation of the saving message.

Here's our Brother's comment:

Hey Kev,

Thanks for helping get the message out. I'd love to answer any questions your readers (or you might have)might have.

Also, for the record, I am actually still the President until October's elections...and I'll remain ex officio on the FGA Council for at least the next year.

I know the letter intro gives a different impressing because of the titles established by our bylaws.

Thanks and God bless,

FRL

Faith in the Flinty Rock

Here are some things I’ve been wrestling with. I will draw some conclusions from what I’ve been studying and apply them to some issues in Christendom but the real purpose of this is to spark some discussion. I believe the Lord has a plan to teach me through these things so I’m hopeful others will participate and thereby learn as well.

I must apologize as this will not be short at all.

God told Moses to go up on a mountain and die.

Have you ever wondered about the details of why God ordered Moses to go up on that mountain and die? Deut 32:48-51 Let’s read that account because the Lord answers the question right in His command to Moses.

Then the LORD spoke to Moses that very same day, saying:

"Go up this mountain of the Abarim, Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab, across from Jericho; view the land of Canaan, which I give to the children of Israel as a possession; and die on the mountain which you ascend, and be gathered to your people, just as Aaron your brother died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people; because you trespassed against Me among the children of Israel at the waters of Meribah Kadesh, in the Wilderness of Zin, because you did not hallow Me in the midst of the children of Israel.

Because he trespassed against Him among the children of Israel by not hallowing Him in their midst, Moses didn’t obey God and did not recognize His holiness. This, of course, relates to the incident where Moses was told to speak to the Rock so Israel would have water to drink. Previously Moses had been told to strike the Rock with his staff. Moses, disobeyed God and struck the Rock again (only twice this time), and water did flow out but this was despite his disobedience to God and slight against His holiness, as we will see. Many have wondered about the harsh sentence of death that God set for Moses because of this simple act of disobedience. I think we find two keys to what the real issue was when we see that Moses did not hallow God, and that this was done in the midst of the children of Israel.

The Rock was Christ, and Moses knew it.

The Apostle Paul tells US today how the Rock was Christ in 1Cor 10:1-4 but I believe that Moses knew it in his day, as well as Paul explains it now. Paul says, that the Rock “followed” them. This is such an intriguing statement, and I actually think it plays a part in what I’m learning, that it grabs my attention and keeps it for hours at a time each time I read this passage.

We read in the “Heroes of Faith” chapter of the Bible that Moses chose the reproach of Christ. Read Heb 11:24-27

By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured as seeing Him who is invisible.

It says “as” seeing Him who is invisible. This does not mean “as if” he saw Him but that he saw Him. This again is New Testament revelation on Old Testament happenings but it is apparent that if the Scriptures are inerrant that statements of fact in the NT cannot be factually wrong.

If we look in Deut 32, the same chapter where God tells Moses to go up on the mountain and die we read Moses making declaration to Israel the praises of their Rock, as the person of God.

Deut 32:3-4

For I proclaim the name of the LORD: Ascribe greatness to our God. He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He.

Moses equates the Rock with God whose work is perfect.

Deut 32:12-13

So the LORD alone led him, And there was no foreign god with him. "He made him ride in the heights of the earth, That he might eat the produce of the fields; He made him draw honey from the Rock, And oil from the flinty Rock;

This is the same flinty Rock that Moses struck and drank from.

Deut 32:15-18

"But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; You grew fat, you grew thick, You are obese! Then he forsook God who made him, And scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation. They provoked Him to jealousy with foreign gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger. They sacrificed to demons, not to God, To gods they did not know, To new gods, new arrivals That your fathers did not fear. Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful, And have forgotten the God who fathered you

Here the Rock is unequivocally equated with God as he writes the Rock who begot you and the God who fathered you.

Deut 32:29-31

Oh, that they were wise, that they understood this, That they would consider their latter end! How could one chase a thousand, And two put ten thousand to flight, Unless their Rock had sold them, And the LORD had surrendered them? For their rock is not like our Rock, Even our enemies themselves being judges.

Now speaking of foreign gods Moses says that their god is not like our God, as is seen by even Israel’s enemies. It is a clear distinction. It’s of note that Moses wrote Deut 6:4

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!

And that the word for one is a plural unity, meaning 3 (or more) as one. We see this word used to indicate a unity of persons in Exo 24:3 and Zeph 3:9 and a physical unity in Exo 36:12

And Moses also wrote Genesis where we read;

Gen 1:1-2

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

According to The Complete Word Study Dictionary (© 1992 By AMG International, Inc. Chattanooga, TN 37422, U.S.A.Revised edition, 1993) The word rendered God there is;

’^eֱאֹלִהים lohiym: A masculine plural noun meaning God, gods, judges, angels. Occurring more than 2,600 times in the Old Testament, this word commonly designates the one true God (Gen_1:1) and is often paired with God's unique name y^ehowah (H3068)

In Gen 1:26 we read;

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Later in Gen 3:22 we read;

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"

It’s clear that Moses knew about the nature of the Godhead, the Trinity, and that the Persons that make up the Trinity can be in separate physical locations, as we read him specifically note in Gen 1:2 So we know that Moses COULD believe that the Rock was actually God based on his understanding of the Godhead and that in his own preaching to Israel that he declared that the Rock actually was God.

All of this has been to establish that the Rock was Christ, and Moses knew it.

Moses struck the Rock again.

Moses knew the Rock was Christ and chose to strike Him again, though He had already been stricken and life giving water had already flown out of Him. The Lord God told him the second time to simply speak to the Rock and out would flow the needed water.

Num 20:7-12

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Take the rod; you and your brother Aaron gather the congregation together. Speak to the rock before their eyes, and it will yield its water; thus you shall bring water for them out of the rock, and give drink to the congregation and their animals."

So Moses took the rod from before the LORD as He commanded him. And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock; and he said to them, "Hear now, you rebels! Must we bring water for you out of this rock?"

Then Moses lifted his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod; and water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their animals drank. Then the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not believe Me, to hallow Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them."

Moses in his anger accused Israel of being rebels and then rebelled against God himself. He struck the Rock, which he knew to be Christ, twice. Our faithful God still provided for His children, but Moses was immediately dealt with. We know from Deut 32 that Moses was subject to death for this sin.

Could this be the sin unto death the Apostle John writes of in 1Jn 5:16-17?

If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.

Some other passages that show God’s work with the Rock are;

Deut 8:11-16 Neh 9:7-15 Ps 78:16-20 Ps 105:40-41 Ps 114:7-8 Isa 48:21

It’s of note that the Scriptures say that while Moses struck the Rock the first time with his staff, that it was actually God who split the Rock open so that the waters would flow out of it. Likewise, the Roman Centurion stuck his spear in the side of Christ’s lifeless body on the Cross and water flowed out. John 19:32-34

Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.

Yet we read in Isa 53:10 NASB that it was the Father who “crushed” Him.

But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

The Lord did the work of bringing forth the water, through the agency of men. The “work” of Christ was done at the Cross where He was stricken once for all. Rom 6:10, Heb 7:27, Heb 9:12, Heb 10:10, 1Pet 3:18 and He will never again be put to sacrifice. In fact to do things that might seem to make it look like He is again suffering for our sins is also great sin, by putting Him to open shame. Heb 6:6 Why would that be shameful? Because He was already broken, He was already humiliated Heb 12:2, Acts 8:32-33 and He was already glorified. John 17:1-10 And if He was, is and will ever be Holy then He is pure and His sacrifice was accepted. To break Him again is to say His sacrifice was not accepted, which since God the Father cannot lie must mean that Christ was not spotless and therefore not acceptable.

Where Christ had to be stricken before the people once as a demonstration, today we must only speak in faith for life to come.

We have been given the Gospel of Christ to preach and we know that Faith comes by hearing it, and that Eternal Salvation comes by Grace through that Faith. Rom 1:16, Rom 10:11-17, Eph 2:8-9 We are not told to see Christ as being crucified again, or to add to His finished work. John 19:30

So the thoughts that I’m having about all of this are these. Christ paid for the sins of the world. When we come to Him we need not pay for them again. Since His payment was accepted, the Living Water now comes through Faith in God, not doing works. Moses tried to do a work when he struck the Rock twice the next time. He thought that it was going to be himself and Aaron who would bring the water out of the Rock. Num 20:10

And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock; and he said to them, "Hear now, you rebels! Must we bring water for you out of this rock?"

This reminds me of those who say they will be worthy of Salvation, or that some other work must be done in order for Salvation to occur. Either the person, or the Christ.

In Isa 56:1 we read that God’s salvation is about to come, and in John 19:9 we read that it has come in Christ Jesus. In Rom 11:11 we read that Salvation “has come” to the Gentiles.

Salvation is here, it must now only be received. 1Cor 15:1-2

For God justifies apart from or completely separate from works, on the basis of Faith alone. Rom 4:1-25

What is Moses preaching about in Deut 32? He’s preaching repentance. A change of mind, a turning from faith in idols/works/law/effort/luck/strength… to Faith in Christ alone. Not a doing of works, not a doing of anything except trusting the Rock who is unlike any other rock. Trusting the FINISHED work of the Rock.

Some applications of these lessons are these;

Some Catholics believe that the bread and wine used at Communion (The Lord’s Table) actually transforms into the physical body of Christ and His blood as it enters their bodies. This would be to sacrifice Christ all over again, to strike the Rock again.

Some Calvinists believe that Eternal Salvation, or the effective work of the Living Water, is dependent on the Practical Sanctification of the believer. They say one must “endure until the end” this is to say that the Living Water that flows from the Stricken Rock is not enough to secure Salvation. It is to add to the FINISHED work of the Cross. It is to strike the Rock again, for as Practical Sanctification occurs the sinner must be saved from their sin even after they have believed in the first place. Since we know there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood we know that sacrifice must continue if there is to be continued remission of sins. Heb 9:22 if Christ was not enough in the first, then He must again be sacrificed and put to an open shame among the people. Heb 6:6

Some professing Christians say that Eternal Salvation can be lost. This is either to deny that true Living Water flowed out of the Stricken Rock in the first place, making God out to be a liar. Or it makes Christ out to be an imperfect sacrifice. Not a “flinty” Rock but a common rock of mixed materials, earth and stone. Either way it says that Christ was not enough.

In Deut 8:15 we read that the Rock that water flowed out of was a “flinty” Rock. The word flinty means, hard, smooth, resolute. This same word is used in Scripture to show things that are very hard, unbreakable, and daunting. Christ is described as the Flinty Rock because man couldn’t break Him, only God could. The work that provided Salvation to the world could only be done by God, and it cannot be duplicated or added to by man.

Eternal Salvation is by Grace through Faith, apart from works.

But these things don’t just rebuke the Calvinists, the Catholics, and those who claim faith without security who drift into error by strange doctrines. These things also bring to light the importance of the Gospel its self, and rebuke those who reduce the Gospel from a testimony of the Rock to a desire for what the Rock can provide.

Some people in the Free Grace camp believe that one can be Eternally Saved by “Believing in Jesus for Eternal Life.” Now that statement has some truth in it, after all even see the Apostle Paul answer a man’s desire for Salvation with a very similar simple statement. Acts 16:29-31

Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."

But we are not told that the man was saved at this point. He was only saved AFTER having been preached the Word of the Lord as we read in the next two verses Acts 16:32-33

Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

The Apostle didn’t just tell him to desire what the Lord could do (or even ask for it), he told him to believe in HIM, and identified Who He Is. Then because of this believing the man would have Eternal Salvation.

It’s of note that in all the Scriptures I quoted from Moses above that he identifies God by WHAT He has done. Moses never lets His identity be questioned, usurped or unclear. Moses doesn’t put his security, or that of Israel in their belief of Salvation, but in their belief in the God who has, can and will save.

But when we say that Moses knew the Rock was Christ, what did he know of this Christ? Did he really know WHO the Christ was? He never called Him Jesus after all. He never “Believed in Jesus for Eternal Life” yet we know that he was Saved because he appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus Christ. Mat 17:1-3

Here are some facts about The Christ that Moses knew, based only on the Scriptures we’ve discussed here. There is in fact much more if you look at the rest of Moses’ writing, including the Passover. Moses was actually very familiar with The Christ.

· He would be born sinless, the seed of a woman (not of a man) and so spotless as an acceptable sacrifice. Gen 3:15 (it is obvious from Moses’ other writing that he well knew what made for a proper Sacrifice).

· He would be stricken and that God would provide the water. Deut 8:15 (God did the work)

· That after being stricken He would continue 1Cor 10:1-4, and the fact that Moses continues to recognize the Rock (in each instance) as the same Rock, not just a rock among many.

· That God is One. Deut 6:4

· That the God who the Rock was, was the One True God identified by the things He has done. All the scripture above is ref to this.

It appears that Moses knew The Christ, and His Gospel, and so has everyone else who has believed Moses. And like I said, this is limiting my survey of what Moses knew of The Christ to only the sections of Scripture which we have discussed here. To cover it all would take volumes. To fail to preach the full Gospel of Jesus of Christ 1Cor 15:1-11 and hold it as absolutely true and absolutely required is to fail to “ascribe greatness to God” when you try to proclaim His Name. Deut 32:3

So why DID God tell Moses to go up on that mountain and die?

God told Moses to go up on that mountain and die because among the people where he was supposed to show the work of God, he bore false witness that Living Water comes by man’s effort. He reduced the Rock to a rock that man could control, use, and abuse. He did not hallow Christ as the Faithful One, crushed by the Father for us so that we could, by faith, drink freely that which brings Life Eternal. He knew Who the Rock was. He knew the Rock would give Living Water, but he did not honor Him as Who He was. Instead Moses chose to get the water the way he wanted, not the way God said it would come – by Faith.

Are you one who has been doing similarly as Moses did? This could be your wake up call.

These are the things I’m thinking about recently. What are your thoughts?

Identity - Part 3

Is Saving Faith "blind faith"?

If Saving Faith is not blind then it must be placed in something known, or understood. If something must be known or understood does this add something to Salvation by Grace through Faith? I say that Saving Faith is not blind but is placed in One Who is made known through revelation by testimony of His Own works. The process of revelation is processed by reasoning in the mind of the Sinner as ministered to by the Spirit of God. This results in one exclusive identity of the person of Christ that cannot be impersonated or usurped by any created thing, thus results in a faith in Him alone.

Isa 1:18 puts it this way.

"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.

The Lord our God does not want “simple faith” that is simple to knowledge of Him but wise to our desire for Eternal Life. For does not all the world want to live, yet have nothing to do with the Lord God Almighty? The Faith the Lord wants is that which is placed in Him. And I echo the Apostle Paul saying “How can they call on One of Whom they have not heard?” We must know His identity in order to call on Him.

But those who reduce the Gospel (The Saving Message which must be received) to something akin to “Believe Jesus for Eternal Life” do not just misidentify the Object of Saving Faith they also misidentify the effect of it. Let us read and hear again what our ministry is.

2 Cor 5:18-20

Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.

Eternal Life is a benefit but our ministry is that of reconciliation to God Himself. Heaven is not a wonderful place where God hangs out. Heaven is a wonderful place BECAUSE the One True Holy and Perfect God is there. He is the glory of Heaven.

I submit to the reader that those who say “We just can’t know for sure” what the actual Saving Message is are like the agnostics of the World. They are comfortable with non-committal supposing they offend no one, and cannot be in error if they do not take a stand. This comfortable status quo leaves one luke-warm in their convictions.

Be sure the Lord Our God is near to all who call on Him in truth. Ps 145:18 We ought to “consider” His works. Eccl 7:18.

Here are a couple of quotes from Warren Henderson’s book, In Search Of God (Gospel Folio Press 2007)

“Modern philosophy considers reason and faith to be disassociated, but the Bible teaches that both must be exercised to know God and to understand truth. Philosophy teaches that these are conflicting agents – the former intellectual and the latter emotional. But is this true? Is there no common ground in which both faith and reason might labor together for a greater benefit than either could accomplish alone? What is the consequence of determining reality solely through a philosophical means?” Pg 13

“Biblical Christianity has this distinction over the religions of the world- the seeker is challenged to test the Scripture to validate its truthfulness.” Pg 22

The Law of Sin & Death states “The soul that sins shall die.” Ezk 18:4 & Ezk 18:20 If one has sinned they must die. They can do that themselves, or they can be baptized into Christ’s death (& resurrection) by grace through faith. But they cannot choose Christ unless they know Him, and they can’t know Him unless they know what He did.

Thus one must properly identify the object, content and result of our Saving Faith, or it cannot be Saving Faith.

Ref: My work about reasoning here is derivative of Henderson's presentations in his book.

Identity - Part 2

In my previous post I got into the Scriptures about the importance of properly identifying Our Lord. Today I want to briefly discuss the implications of not properly identifying Him. I showed in the previous post how those who were speaking with and learning from the "right Jesus" were not saved because they had not properly identified Him. Today, I'm interested in what it means for a Christian to improperly identify Him before the world.

Some men who claim to be believers in "Free Grace" say that one need not know that Jesus is The Christ in order to be saved. These same men lift the Apostle John's testimony of Our Lord's humiliation and resurrection above the rest of Scripture. They say one must "Believe in Jesus for Eternal Life" to be saved.

My dear friends, brethren and others reading if we claim to be believers in "Free Grace" we must acknowledge Who brought us this Grace. Let us read and hear what the dear Apostle John says in his first chapter.

John 1:14-18
¹⁴ And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
¹⁵ John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”
¹⁶ And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. ¹⁷ For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ¹⁸ No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

Grace and Truth came through Jesus Christ, who the Apostle makes very clear IS God in the flesh.

John 1:1-4
¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was in the beginning with God. ³ All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. ⁴ In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. ⁵ And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Today, if we claim to believe in "Free Grace" but deny the Truth we make ourselves liars do we not? It's a question I ask you to consider.

I'm reminded of Paul's question in Galatians 4:21 and myself ask this. "You who wish to limit Evangelism to John's testimony do you not hear John's testimony?"

Identity - Part 1

Never mind what men think. How important is it to the God of the Bible that we properly identify Him?

Mark 12:28-30
²⁸ Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”

²⁹ Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. ³⁰ And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment.

Deuteronomy 6:4-5
⁴ “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! ⁵ You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

He declares that He is one. A particular God, not just God. The word translated as one there is actually "a unity of one." Which God? Your God.

Exodus 20:1-7
¹ And God spoke all these words, saying:
² “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
³ “You shall have no other gods before Me.
⁴ “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; ⁵ you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, ⁶ but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
⁷ “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain

He identifies Himself, not by name but by what He has done. And then He commands that any who should "take His name in vain" will not be held guiltless.

While I would agree that to use His Name and/or His Titles as a curse word would be to take His Name in vain this is actually a much broader subject. We take someone's name in vain when we use it to validate what we are saying. When we say "Thus saith the LORD.." when He didn't say any such thing. Or when we say He is someone who He is not.

How many people were named "Jesus" when Jesus The Christ was in His humiliation? Thousands I suspect. The Bible doesn't tell us to put our faith in someone named Jesus. It tells us to put our faith in The Christ.

When Paul declares the Gospel He identifies the Christ as the One who did the things "in accordance with the Scriptures." God is again identified by what He has done because NO ONE ELSE could do these things.

If you study the LORD's Names in Scripture they tell of what He has done and does do. When the Bible says to put your faith in Jesus, it has already identified Who this Jesus is. We read this in the often abused verses;

John 20:30-31
³⁰ And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; ³¹ but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Notice these things are written so that you will believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Proper identity.

Many doing abuse to these verses ignore that this statement by the Apostle John comes immediately after John's description of Christ's resurrection. Read the chapter yourself John 20:1-31

Christ is only properly identified when the full Gospel is presented, just as Israel was to recognize only the LORD who had brought them out of Egypt.

Jesus Christ, is the Jesus Who is the Son of God so that He could die for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and Who actually did die for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures. Who was buried and rose on the third day according to the Scriptures and Who was seen alive in the flesh by more than 500 people.

They wanted a sign to show that Jesus was God or they would not believe. THIS IS THE SIGN GIVEN IAW Jesus' own words to identify Him as God. We see this explained in John 6 very well.

John 6:22-40
²² On the following day, when the people who were standing on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other boat there, except that one which His disciples had entered, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with His disciples, but His disciples had gone away alone— ²³ however, other boats came from Tiberias, near the place where they ate bread after the Lord had given thanks— ²⁴ when the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they also got into boats and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. ²⁵ And when they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “Rabbi, when did You come here?”

²⁶ Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. ²⁷ Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”

²⁸ Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” ²⁹ Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”³⁰ Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? ³¹ Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”³² Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. ³³ For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”³⁴ Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”³⁵ And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. ³⁶ But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. ³⁷ All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. ³⁸ For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. ³⁹ This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. ⁴⁰ And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Today people will tell you that the Gospel preached by Paul, and all the Apostles 1 Cor 15:1-11 is a stumbling block to sinners. That it violates "Free Grace" to preach such a Gospel. That to believe one must know Who and what they trust is just plain too much to ask. They separate, mock and ridicule those who stand within the Gospel preached by the Apostles and those who seek to do as they did.

But today is no different than the day the Lord spoke those words I've just quoted.

John 6:41-42
⁴¹ The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” ⁴² And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

But it was not just those who had not had some fellowship with Him. Even those acting as disciples turned away.

John 6:60-66
⁶⁰ Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”⁶¹ When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? ⁶² What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? ⁶³ It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. ⁶⁴ But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. ⁶⁵ And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

⁶⁶ From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

The Lord didn't back down from what He was preaching. He did not give an easier message for people to accept. He identified Himself as He is to be identified. Here is what He said to the faithful.

^{John 6:67-69
67} Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”
⁶⁸ But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. ⁶⁹ Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

These men knew Who Jesus is.

Why did Jesus tell the Scribes that the most important commandment was ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. ³⁰ And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’

Because they were not recognizing Him as God, they knew He was Jesus of Nazareth. They knew He was a Rabbi. They knew He had done many miracles. But they denied He was God, and that He was the Bread of Life. They denied the truth of the Gospel that Christ would give His own to preach to all the world. They had the wrong identity even though they were talking to the right Jesus.

So reader, never mind what men think. How important is it to the God of the Bible that we properly identify Him?

Except Ye Repent!

Recently at a Crossless Gospel blog I saw a post that featured writing from HA Ironside with the title "Christ is not just necessary -- He is enough!" Of course I could find nothing to disagree with in that title, it is the rest of the message of the blog that I disagree with. They claim that some "add" repentance, and the facts of the Gospel to the Salvation Message. Of course when I saw this article I couldn't help but smile. A version of HA Ironside's "Except Ye Repent!" updated with modern English transformed my walk with Christ.

They may quote Ironside, but they can't change what the man really preached. Read the full book at Wholesome Words. Here's a sample of the introduction;

Fully convinced in my own mind that the doctrine of repentance is the missing note in many otherwise orthodox and fundamentally sound circles today, I have penned this volume out of a full heart. I hope and pray that God will be pleased to use it to awaken many of His servants to the importance of seeking so to present His truth as to bring men to the only place where He can meet them in blessing. That place is the recognition of their own demerit and absolute unworthiness of His least mercies and a new conception of His saving power for all who come to Christ as lost sinners, resting alone upon His redemptive work for salvation, and depending upon the indwelling Holy Spirit to make them victorious over sin's power in daily life.

The pages have been written during a busy summer, as I have gone from place to place trying to preach and teach the very truths herein emphasized. Most of the book was scribbled out in Pullman cars while speeding from one appointment to another. If there seems at times to be lack of continuity of thought, I hope the manifest defects of the treatise may not hinder the reader from getting the message I have endeavored to set forth as clearly as possible, under difficult circumstances.

I have not written for literary critics or for theological quibblers, but for earnest people who desire to know the will of God and to do it. And so I send forth this book, in dependence on Him who has said, "Cast thy bread upon the waters: and thou shalt find it after many days." If He be pleased to use it to arouse some at least to a deeper sense of the importance of reality in dealing with souls, I shall be grateful.

—Harry A. Ironside

When WAS Paul saved anyway?

Wow.. anyone who knows me knows I am not a fan of commentaries. Yet, I have read and will continue to read theological works - though no matter the subject or author I do so with the highest degree of skepticism.

All that being said, there are a few of our Brethren in the Blogosphere (is this the first time I've actually used this word here at OMW??) who have a talent for pointing out really cool things I haven't yet noticed. JP is the most consistent example of that. But today, Brother Dave dropped a tiny little bombshell on me as I was just checking out some comments at his blog. I really don't want to interrupt the budding conversation in my last post but this is really important. And I've just never heard anyone speak on this point before.

Here's the quote;

I read elsewhere in a blog that Paul was saved on Damascus road without believing that a Jesus died for him??? Paul wasn't saved there my friend but later:

Read Acts 22:16, (Ananias speaking to Saul) “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Compare that to 1st Corinthians 15:3 where Paul claimed that the message that he received was how Jesus died according to the Scriptures and now he preached to them as of "first importance."

Neat eh? How often have the Lordshippers used the story of Paul's "conversion on the Damascus Road" as an example of Lordship Salvation? Too often.

Here's the account from Acts 9

1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”
Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”
6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”
Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. 8 Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and to him the Lord said in a vision, “Ananias.”
And he said, “Here I am, Lord.”
11 So the Lord said to him, “Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus, for behold, he is praying. 12 And in a vision he has seen a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, so that he might receive his sight.”
13 Then Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.”
15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”
17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.
19 So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus.

20 Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God.
21 Then all who heard were amazed, and said, “Is this not he who destroyed those who called on this name in Jerusalem, and has come here for that purpose, so that he might bring them bound to the chief priests?”
22 But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving that this Jesus is the Christ.

Paul describes this in Gal 1:15-17

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

This topic deserves more discussion so let's get at it.