A Free Grace Alliance Response to Wayne Grudem’s “The Historic Protestant Viewpoint and The Free Grace Viewpoint on Conversion”
Charles C. Bing, Ph.D.
Joseph Dillow, Th.D.
Roger Fankhauser, D.Min.
John Correia, M.Div.
June 25, 2014
The mission of the Free Grace Alliance is to connect, encourage, and equip the body of Christ to advance the grace message throughout the world. We know many disagree with the Free Grace message we promote. Recently, Dr. Wayne Grudem, a well-known reformed theologian, spoke publicly in two separate instances critiquing Free Grace theology in general and the Free Grace Alliance (hereafter, FGA) in particular. We know of at least one more venue in which he will publicly present what he perceives as the errors of Free Grace theology. Unfortunately, some of what he presented does not accurately represent what the Free Grace Alliance believes.
Dr. Grudem is a well-known international speaker, writer, and professor. His writing and speaking cover a wide and significant range of topics such as theology, politics, the role of men and women in ministry, and poverty. He served on the Translation Oversight Committee for the English Standard Version of the Bible. He has served as president of both the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the Evangelical Theological Society. His Systematic Theology is used widely in the United States and around the world. We recognize his accomplishments and his contributions to the cause of Christ. What follows is not intended to disparage Dr. Grudem in any way, but rather to give a brief response to those statements we perceive as not accurately reflecting Free Grace theology as we understand it and teach it.[1]
It goes without saying that not all within the Free Grace movement agree on every point of theology. Where we do agree is the core understanding that salvation (justification) is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The core beliefs of the FGA are delineated in the FGA covenant.[2] The responses that follow reflect the official position of the FGA, hold for most within the Free Grace movement, but may not represent every Free Grace proponent in every detail. The topics are addressed in the approximate order in which they occur within Dr. Grudem’s presentation.[3]
The Covenant Statement of the FGA
Dr. Grudem states the FGA covenant statement is not very helpful in classifying the distinctive views of the Free Grace Movement. For example, he critiques the covenant’s phrase, “faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” which he says he could agree with “if I could define ‘faith’ in the way Protestant teachers have historically defined it, to include repentance from sin, and to include a heartfelt personal receiving of Christ as Lord and God into one’s life, and to specify that genuine faith will always produce evident works.”[4] However, the FGA believes the covenant does, in fact, adequately define the biblical concept of faith: “Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.”
The authors of this covenant chose words carefully and intentionally to define the beliefs of the organization and to allow enough flexibility for differences of thinking among its members. For example, as will be shown below, multiple views of repentance are held by key thinkers within the FGA. Repentance is not addressed in the covenant because the organizers of, and subsequent leaders of, the FGA believed the topic was important, but not a central tenet of the organization or of the Free Grace position. The purpose of the covenant is not to fully define a Free Grace system, but to identify the core truths which the FGA asks its members to affirm.[5]
By comparison, the doctrinal statements of two organizations with which Dr. Grudem actively associates (Phoenix Seminary and Scottsdale Bible Church) are less precise about the meaning of “faith” than the FGA covenant. [6] Nowhere in either statement is a definition or explanation of faith, any reference to repentance, or any statement that genuine faith always produces evident works.[7] Thus, the FGA covenant may not define faith the way Dr. Grudem prefers, but it does define faith sufficiently for the FGA and with more detail than that of many other organizations. The covenant does provide sufficient content based on the intent of FGA leadership to define the uniqueness of the organization.
Faith
As above, Dr. Grudem says of faith, “If I could define ‘faith’ in the way Protestant teachers have historically defined it, to include repentance from sin, and to include a heartfelt personal receiving of Christ as Lord and God into one’s life, and to specify that genuine faith will always produce evident works, then I could even agree with this.” He then adds, “but the FGA has a specialized, more narrow understanding of ‘faith’, which excludes these things, and with which I could not agree.”
Several points need clarification here.
(1) His definition of faith here includes elements not found in the Greek words pisteuō (believe) and pistis (faith).[8] Two primary definitions of pisteuo in a major standard Greek lexicon are “to consider something to be true and therefore worthy of one’s trust, believe”or “to entrust oneself to an entity in complete confidence, believe (in), trust.”[9] Dr. Grudem’s statement about faith is not a definition so much as a statement about what he and others believe must accompany faith.
(2) Although the FGA covenant does not use the words “heartfelt personal receiving of Christ as Lord,” it does say in its second point that “The sole means of receiving the free gift of eternal life is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” and in its third point that faith “is a personal response” (emphasis added). Thus, we affirm a personal response to Jesus.
(3) The statement that “genuine faith will always produce evident works” speaks of the expected result of faith, but is not part of a definition of faith. We affirm that spiritual growth (which includes “works”) is God’s expectation of every believer. Where we differ with Dr. Grudem is the role such growth plays in evaluating one’s salvation.
Dr. Charles Bing concludes in his analysis of the meaning of faith:
The lexical evidence and Bible passages do not support the Lordship definition of faith as obedience, willingness to obey, or submission. Neither can it be shown that faith is a ‘divine dynamic’ which is a gift from God or that it guarantees a certain measure of works, though it implies works. Furthermore, there is no strong argument that the Bible contains examples of spurious faith. Faith is always real faith.
The lexical evidence shows that faith is trust, reliance upon, or confidence in something. Biblical passages demonstrate its simplicity as a human response. It involves man in his intellectual and volitional capacities which should not be separated. The validity of faith is determined by the quality of its object, not the quality of the faith itself.
What makes saving faith different from any other faith is its object. Therefore, saving faith is defined as trust or confidence in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Savior from sin. It is a personal acceptance of the work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross for the sinner… When one believes, he takes God at His word and personally appropriates the provision of Christ’s free gift of salvation for himself. [10]
Dr. Grudem also addresses his concern that some Free Grace proponents weaken the gospel by affirming that the gospel message is believing that I am a sinner and Christ is my Savior as opposed to belief in Christ as my Savior. He supports his statement by citing Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society statement of faith. However, when one looks at the context from which Dr. Grudem cites, it seems Hodges means more than Dr. Grudem implies:
The one thing we cannot do, however, is to believe something we do not know about. That is why the apostle Paul declared quite plainly, ‘And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?’ (Rom. 10:14). And he added appropriately, ‘So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God’ (10:17)… Does that involve the intellect? Of course! But is it mere intellectual assent? Of course not! To describe faith that way is to demean it as a trivial, academic exercise, when in fact it is no such thing…What faith really is, in biblical language, is receiving the testimony of God. It is the inward conviction that what God says in the gospel is true. That – and that alone – is saving faith.[11]
Hodges clearly held that the “belief” that results in eternal life is more than simply acknowledging the historicity of Jesus and His work. He writes, “But to believe that Jesus is the Christ – in John’s sense of that term – is to believe saving truth,” and, “The facts presented to her (Martha, John 11:25-27) by the Lord are more than great facts. They are saving facts. That is, they are divinely revealed facts which are to be believed for salvation.”[12] He, and virtually all who hold some form of a Free Grace view, believe that the ultimate object of our faith is Jesus. We trust a person, not a doctrine.
Since we live nearly 2,000 years after Jesus lived on the earth, we must rely on propositional truths to reveal to us the Jesus in whom we must believe, to reveal His work, and to reveal the promise of eternal life. Thus, one cannot divorce belief “in” Jesus from believing statements “about” Jesus.
Repentance
Dr. Grudem expresses concern that the Free Grace position says repentance (in the sense of sorrow for sin and a decision of the will to forsake sin) is not a necessary condition for or a part of saving faith and that evangelistic messages should not include a call to repentance from sin.
Before responding to this statement, we must first see Dr. Grudem’s view of repentance. He writes,
We may define repentance as follows: Repentance is a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ… We cannot say that a person has to actually live that changed life for a period of time before repentance can be genuine, or else repentance would be turned into a kind of obedience we could do to merit salvation for ourselves. Of course, genuine repentance will result in a changed life. In fact, a truly repentant person will begin at once to live a changed life, and we can call that changed life the fruit of repentance… Repentance is something that occurs in the heart and involves the whole person in a decision to turn from sin.[13]
He then adds
Therefore, it is clearly contrary to the New Testament evidence to speak about the possibility of having true saving faith without having any repentance for sin. It is also contrary to the New Testament to speak about the possibility of someone accepting Christ ‘as Savior’ but not ‘as Lord,’ if that means simply depending on him for salvation but not committing oneself to forsake sin and to be obedient to Christ from that point on.[14]
With this definition, Dr. Grudem’s concern is understandable. However, the question arises whether this is the best understanding of repentance. Within the Free Grace camp, few, if any, would agree with his definition and explanation. The FGA covenant does not give a specific definition of repentance,[15] and individual members may hold different definitions of repentance. The two more common understandings are “change of mind / heart”[16] or “an internal resolve to turn from one’s sins.”[17]
The English word repentance translates the Greek words metanoia (the verb form) and metanoeō (the noun form). Most Greek lexicons give “change of mind” as the basic definition for both words.[18] The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament includes “to change one’s mind,” including the possibility of “to feel regret,” in the basic definition for both words in extra-biblical Greek usage.[19] In discussing the historical significance of the usage of these terms outside of the Scriptures, this work concludes
In pre-biblical and extra-biblical usage metanoeō and metanoia are not firmly related to any specific concepts… For the Greeks metanoia never suggests an alteration in the total moral attitude, a profound change in life’s direction, a conversion which affects the whole of conduct… Whether linguistically or materially, one looks in vain for the origin of the NT understanding of metanoeō and metanoia.[20]
Do the New Testament uses of metanoia or metanoeō support the additional meaning implied by Dr. Grudem? Those who hold some form of the “change of mind” definition would say the additional meanings are imported into the word; that they are not actually part of the basic meaning itself.
Bing makes this observation:
Our understanding of metanoia is also helped by how the Hebrew word shub (= to turn [from something], used over 1000 times in the Old Testament) is translated. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint, it is regularly translated by the Greek word strephō and its various forms. It is never translated by metanoia. If metanoia meant to turn from sin, then we would expect it to translate the Hebrew word for turn (shub) at least occasionally. In the late second century, church father Tertullian argued that the meaning of ‘change of mind’ is the best translation of metanoia… The English word repentance has its roots in the Latin word penitentia which denotes penitence as sorrow, or worse, the Catholic doctrine of penance, in which a person’s sins are absolved by a priest’s prescribed acts of punishment. Repentance should not be defined in terms of outward action or sorrowful emotion.[21]
He then gives the definition:
In light of how metanoia is formed and used, it seems a good translation today would be a change of mind. But there may be a better one. When we examine what is meant biblically by mind (nous) we find that it is sometimes used for the inner orientation and moral attitude (cf. Rom. 1:28; 7:23, 25; Eph. 4:17, 23; Col. 2:18). Thus, the mind, biblically speaking, is not always the pure intellect. So, the best translation of metanoia would be a change of heart. It refers to a person’s inner change of attitude and moral direction. The Bible does not psychologically dissect the inner person, but leaves it at that. Linguistically, a change of heart does not demand a change in conduct, though that is what is normally expected from an inner change. The Bible distinguishes between the inner change of repentance and the outer conduct it motivates. This is clear in the logical progression from inner repentance to outer conduct mentioned in Matthew 3:8/Luke 3:8 and Acts 26:20, and in the unlikely scenario of one changing his behavior seven times in a day in Luke 17:3-4.[22]
Ryrie summarizes his view of repentance as a “change of mind”:[23]
Repentance means a genuine change of mind that affects the life in some way. Like other significant theological terms it must be defined specifically by asking a further question, namely, Change the mind about what? Unsaved people can truly repent but without being saved, as, for example, to change the mind about a bad habit and to break that habit as a result. Christians can repent of specific sins and stop doing them (Rev. 2:5; 2 Cor. 7:9—notice that in this verse sorrow leads to repentance, but it is not necessarily the same as repentance). And unsaved people can repent unto salvation. This saving repentance has to involve a change of mind about Jesus Christ so that whatever a person thought of Him before, he changes his mind and trusts Him to be his Savior. That is the only kind or content of repentance that saves (Acts 2:38; 17:30; 2 Pet. 3:9). However, saving repentance may be preceded by a repentance concerning sin (which activates an individual’s sense of need for forgiveness) or a repentance toward God (which alerts him to the fact that he has offended a holy God and therefore needs a way to appease Him). This aspect of repentance (like John 16:8–11) is still not saving unless it is accompanied by faith in Christ (Acts 20:21).[24]
Anderson takes a different approach. Though his understanding of repentance is different than “change of mind/heart,” the two views have in common that repentance is an internal change, that it is less than a “turning from sins,” and that the fruits of repentance are different than repentance itself. He writes:
Turning from one’s sins in an observable manner may well be the fruit of repentance and/or believing (compare Acts 3:19 and 11:21), but the turning is not part of the root. Yet, if repentance is more than a ‘change of mind,’ but less than an observable turning from sins, what is it? We suggest this meaning: an internal resolve to turn from one’s sins. We think this meaning will make good sense in every NT use.[25]
He concludes that repentance is not a condition for receiving eternal life. Instead,
Repentance is not about relationship, but it is about fellowship. In order to ‘get right with God,’ one must repent. If an unbeliever is in view, he must believe to receive the free gift of eternal life. He might repent before he believes or after he believes. It is his faith which saves him eternally, but it is his repentance which allows him to enjoy his faith. Repentance concerns fellowship.[26]
Concerning the call of John the Baptist and Jesus to “Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand,” Anderson points out that the nation of Israel was already in a covenant relationship with God. The appeal of the prophets for the nation to “return” were appeals to return to covenant loyalty to avoid temporal punishment (wrath). He concludes that John the Baptist, Jesus, and later Peter (in Acts), had “dual ministries”:
One was to call the nation of Israel back to fellowship with Yahweh. The covenant relationship had long since been established… [they] were all trying to persuade Israel into the repentance and turning that would restore them to a refreshing fellowship with God… But the ministry of John, Jesus, and Peter was more than calling the nation of Israel to repentance… Though the nation was called to repentance, individuals in the nation were called to believe and repent.[27]
Neither view holds that sorrow (or any other emotion) necessarily accompanies repentance. The sorrow in 2 Cor. 7:9 leads to repentance; it is not itself repentance.[28] Both views hold that repentance will normally result in some action, but that action itself is not repentance, i.e., the “bearing fruit worthy of repentance” follows repentance (Matt. 3:8, Luke 3:8), where “worthy” means, “pertaining to being fitting or proper in corresponding to what should be expected.”[29]
That the Free Grace gospel presentation does not include a call to repentance from sin (in the sense of feeling sorrow for sin and deciding to turn away from sin) is a valid statement. At least four reasons exist for this. First, and least important, is that “repentance” is so widely misunderstood that it gives an unclear message to the one hearing and confuses the clear gospel. Second, and more importantly, the vast majority of references to repentance are directed to those who already are God’s people, whether the nation of Israel, individual believers, or entire churches (Rev. 2-3). Third, the three key New Testament books that address salvation (justification) – John, Romans, and Galatians[30] – mention “repentance” but once (Rom. 2:4)[31] and, by contrast, pisteuō (believe) or pistis (faith) 185 times (98 in John, 26 in Galatians, and 61 in Romans). It seems telling that John completely avoids the use of the term “repent;” that Paul in Galatians corrects a false gospel and never uses the term repent (for either believers or unbelievers); and that, as he defines in Romans the solution to both the penalty of sin and the power of sin, we find not a single command to repent. Fourth, the clearly predominant message of the New Testament for the unbeliever is “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Reading Dr. Grudem’s understanding of repentance into such texts forces a theological presupposition that the text itself does not carry. Faith is an adequate term to describe the necessary response to the gospel and it overlaps repentance, whether one holds the “change of heart/mind” view of repentance[32] or the” internal resolve to turn from sin” view.[33] Thus, Dr. Grudem is right in his assessment the Free Grace gospel invitation does not include a call for repentance, but the reason is that we believe the primary command for the unbeliever is to believe, not to repent.[34]
Perseverance and Security
Dr. Grudem expresses concerns about the Free Grace position that “saving faith will not necessarily continue throughout a person’s entire life” and that “saving faith does not necessarily produce outwardly evident works. It is possible for a person to have saving faith but no evident works even for a period of many years. Such a person is still saved (but is a carnal Christian).”
Free Grace theology sees spiritual growth as the norm and as God’s expectation for every believer. However, such growth is not manifested uniformly either believer-to-believer or over the lifetime of any individual believer. Most who hold a Free Grace position believe a person will, in fact, produce some sort of fruit at some point in their life. Some who hold a Free Grace position agree with the idea that the works produced in a believer are not necessarily outwardly manifested. For the sake of argument, however, let’s assume a believer would, in fact, produce some outwardly evident works at some point in their lives. A better statement than Dr. Grudem’s summary would be, “The FGA believes saving faith does not necessarily produce outwardly evident works consistently over a believer’s lifetime, and such works are not the basis for determining one’s justification.”
The New Testament repeatedly commands believers not to live their life in accordance with who they are and, conversely, not to live like who they used to be as unbelievers (for example Eph. 4:1, 17, 5:1-2, 8). The implication of such commands implies a believer, at points in his or her life, may well “walk in darkness,” as Ephesians 4:17 explicitly states:
Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds.” (Eph. 4:17, ESV, emphasis added)
At any point in time, a believer may choose (unwisely) to “walk as the Gentiles do,” and may “let sin reign in his or her body” (contrary to Romans 6:12). At those times, the believer will certainly produce less “outwardly evident works” (if any) than when he or she is “walking in the Spirit.” And, should we observe this disobedient believer primarily during this time of disobedience, we may very well conclude (incorrectly) that they are not a believer, based on their fruit.
Evaluating salvation (and therefore one’s assurance) on the basis of “outwardly manifest works” is misleading. In Matthew 7, Jesus speaks of some whom He says He never knew. We are told nothing about whether they claimed to believe or not believe, but they appeal to their “outwardly evident works,” they call Jesus “Lord,” and yet Jesus rejects them:
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matt. 7:21-23, ESV)[35]
Dr. Grudem believes that “only those who persevere to the end have been truly born again” [36] and that the purpose of warning passages is “always to warn those who are thinking of falling away or have fallen away that if they do this it is a strong indication that they were never saved in the first place.”[37] However, he also writes,
Is it always clear which people in the church have genuine saving faith and which have only an intellectual persuasion of the truth of the gospel but no genuine faith in their hearts? It is not always easy to tell, and Scripture mentions in several places that unbelievers in fellowship with the visible church can give some external signs or indications that make them look or sound like genuine believers.[38]
He cites the Matthew 7:21-23 passage (among others) as an example; he cites the life of Judas during his years as a disciple as another. This, however, makes the requirement of “outwardly manifest works” even more confusing. If unbelievers can look and sound like genuine believers for some period of time, then it seems such outward works give no real assurance. These works might be real fruit; they might not. A person holding this position cannot know with full assurance if he is genuinely saved until the end of his or her life.[39]
Such assurance based on works gives a very subjective basis for evaluation. Anderson notes, addressing the issue of keeping commandments as a test of salvation:
1) How many do I have to keep?
2) How long do I have to keep them?
3) Do I have to keep them perfectly?
4) Are some of them more important than others?
5) Will He grade on a curve? [40]
Any answer other than perfect obedience to every command for the entirety of life leaves one in a sea of relativity, with no biblical data to rescue them. Dr. Grudem clearly does not advocate sinless perfection. Yet, his views give no basis for determining how far from sinless perfection one’s life may be and maintain confidence that they are saved.
Can a believer stay in a fruitless or even unfaithful state for an extended period of time, perhaps even until death? Paul says “yes”:
The saying is trustworthy, for:
If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
if we endure, we will also reign with him;
if we deny him, he also will deny us;
if we are faithless, he remains faithful—
for he cannot deny himself. (2 Tim. 2:11-13, ESV)
The first couplet (“if we have died…”) refers to our identity in Christ as the result of believing in Him (Rom. 6:8, Col. 3:1-3), and thus refers to our initial salvation. The second couplet (“if we endure…”) emphasizes reward for the one who faithfully endures. That person will reign in some capacity with Jesus. “Reigning” implies more than simply “being in the presence of,” that is, this couplet speaks of something more than our entry into heaven, which the first couplet emphasizes. In what sense, then, in the third couplet (“if we deny him…”) does Jesus deny the one who denies Him? The construction of the passage sets “deny Him” opposite “endure” (chiasm). If the positive consequence of enduring is reward (reigning with Him), the negative consequence would be loss of reward. Thus, this denial occurs at the Bema seat evaluation of believers:
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. (2 Corinthians 5:10, ESV)[41]
Even if we deny Him and are faithless, Jesus remains faithful. The speaker has not changed, thus the same “we” who have died with Him are the “we” who are potentially faithless. Constable summaries this couplet:
The third couplet (v. 12b) is a warning. If the believer departs from following Christ faithfully during his or her life (i.e., apostatizes), Christ will deny him or her at the judgment seat of Christ (Matt. 10:33; Mark 8:38; Luke 12:9; cf. Luke 19:22; Matt. 22:13). The unfaithful believer will not lose his salvation (1 John 5:13) or all of his reward (1 Pet. 1:4), but he will lose some of his reward (1 Cor. 3:12–15; cf. Luke 19:24–26). To deny Christ clearly does not mean to deny Him only once or twice (cf. Luke 22:54–62) but to deny Him permanently since the other three human conditions in the couplets are permanent.[42]
Thus, it seems possible that a believer may fail in his or her faith (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:30, where Paul reports believers who have died because of their sin). Nothing in the Second Timothy passage indicates the one who fails will necessarily come back to their faith prior to death. A Free Grace response to such a person would not be to conclude necessarily the person is unsaved. The goal is restoration of the individual (Gal. 6:1), but such a person’s lack of faith may well continue until death.
“We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone.”
This phrase, likely first penned by Calvin,[43] is widely quoted, usually connecting the issue of faith and works. Unfortunately, Dr. Grudem implies that the Free Grace movement believes the statement means that nothing accompanies the faith that saves. He references Romans 8:29-30 to demonstrate that no logical difficulty exists with the view that many changes occur when one believes in Christ:
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
He goes on to say that “there is much NT teaching that faith is never alone but many changes come once one believes in Christ” and that “Paul does not say ‘you were justified and nothing else when you believed’.”
No Free Grace proponent would say “we are justified and nothing else when a person believes.” Unfortunately, Dr. Grudem misstates the Free Grace objection to the phrase “the faith that saves is never alone.” All Free Grace proponents agree many changes happen at the moment of salvation, including (but not limited to) justification (Rom. 5:1), adoption (Eph. 1:5), redemption (Eph. 1:7), forgiveness (Eph. 1:7), sealing with the Spirit (Eph. 1:13), being baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13), being made a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), being rescued from the domain of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of Jesus (Col. 1:13), and passing out of death to life (John 5:24).
The objection by the Free Grace community has nothing to do with the idea that “nothing else happens.” The objection lies in the application of the phrase when connecting faith and works. Lybrand, summarizes the Reformers purpose in this statement. He says it
… attempts to make a subtle shift from the Roman Catholic view that works must be added in order for salvation to finally be acquired after life on earth. The Reformers were attempting to be consistent with their doctrine that an individual is saved by grace through faith alone; and yet, also hold that works must be the natural, inevitable, and often immediate, outworking of a person’s experience.[44]
The Reformers wrestled with the relation of works to the believer. They rejected the Catholic notion of works-based salvation; they rejected the idea that works had no significance in the life of a believer. With this concept, the FGA wholeheartedly agrees. “Fruit production” (good works), whether external works or internal change, is the normal expectation of the believer’s life. Where the Free Grace position differs from the Reformed position is:
(1) A believer may well cease to produce such fruit in his or her life. Such a person may die in a carnal state (e.g., “That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died,” 1 Cor. 11:30; “there is sin that leads to death,” 1 John 5:16).
(2) Such fruit is not the basis for assurance of one’s salvation.
Unfortunately, Dr. Grudem further adds his opinion that “the Free Grace movement today is not upholding the Reformation doctrine of sola fide, or ‘justification by faith alone’.” Even a cursory reading of the Reformers show they did not agree on all doctrinal points, including significant issues such as infant baptism and the nature of the elements in the Lord’s Supper. They did, however, agree on many key points, such as “salvation by faith alone in Christ alone,” the centrality of the Scriptures, and the existence of serious errors within the Catholic Church. As Enns summarizes,
The Reformation marked a major turning point in the doctrinal development of the church. For the preceding one thousand years the authority of the church had developed continuously until the tradition of the Roman Catholic church and the authority of the papacy determined what the people were to believe. The Reformation changed all that….Undoubtedly, the religious factor was very significant. Having access to the New Testament, the Reformers and Christian humanists discovered a discrepancy between the church in the New Testament and the practices of the church of Rome. There was corruption from the priesthood to the papacy in the Roman church; simony enabled men to buy and sell church offices. Through the sale of indulgences a person could pay for sins before hand and be assured of the forgiveness of sins. It was this practice in particular that angered Martin Luther and ultimately led to his break with the Roman church….Men like Luther brought a return to the authority of the Scriptures—the Bible alone was the final authority on what was to be believed and practiced. With the renewed emphasis on biblical authority and study of the Scriptures came a new awareness of the doctrine of justification by faith, as well as other historic Christian doctrines…[45]
Within the Free Grace movement, people may disagree about specific details of theology, but they agree universally that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Thus, they agree wholeheartedly with the major premise of the Reformation: justification by faith alone. It is one thing to disagree with Free Grace theology regarding the necessary results of justification by faith alone (e.g., the Reformed view that “the faith that saves is never alone” or the definition of repentance). It is quite another to say that the Free Grace statement of “justification by faith alone” is not upholding the Reformation doctrine of sola fide.[46]It overstates the case. Free Grace Theology clearly affirms “justification by faith alone.”
Whether or not the Free Grace movement actually upholds the doctrine of sola fide (and we believe it does), three issues cannot be dismissed:
(1) The basis for determining truth is not the writings of the Reformers or various creeds. Church history should be seriously considered, but it is not absolutely authoritative.
(2) The church has refined details of doctrine over the centuries. That such refining of thought has occurred about the relation of faith and works since the Reformation does not imply that such thinking (in this case, Free Grace) is necessarily wrong.
(3) The basis for determining the truth must be the text of the Scriptures. The Reformation – and the Reformers – obviously brought about significant changes within the Christian world. However, we must carefully evaluate their conclusions based on the text of the Scriptures (sola scriptura). We agree that justification is by faith alone in Jesus; we disagree with the conclusions about the connection between faith and works following faith.
A “weakened” gospel
Throughout his presentation at Scottsdale Bible Church, Dr. Grudem defines the Free Grace message as a “weakened gospel message;” that it “wrongly gives assurance of eternal life to people who profess faith in Christ but show no evidence in their pattern of life.” First, the Free Grace message, properly understood, does not give assurance to those who profess faith. The message simply says, whoever believes in Jesus has eternal life. Within Free Grace circles, there is some disagreement on what the minimum content of the saving message is, but all would agree one who is convinced that simply by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ who died on the cross for our sins and rose bodily from the dead, apart from works, has everlasting life. This is the clear teaching of Jesus throughout John; Paul echoes the same simple message:
Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Gal. 2:16)
The basis of assurance is not profession of faith, but actual faith in Jesus. If someone believed in Jesus, the promise of Jesus is that they have eternal life. John 3:16 and John 5:24 both make this abundantly clear:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16, ESV)
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. (John 5:24, ESV)
Understandably, with Dr. Grudem’s views on repentance and the necessity of works accompanying salvation, he would logically conclude the Free Grace message is a weakened message; we disagree with his assessment, however. Far from being a “weakened” gospel message, Free Grace people believe their gospel is simple, biblical, and strong. We believe the Free Grace message represents the stronger gospel in that it directs people to Christ as the object of faith and bases assurance on the objective person, work, and promises of Christ, rather than upon introspection and subjective works as a qualifier of faith.
Further, he said the Free Grace message “deprives true Christians of enjoying the deeper assurance of salvation that NT authors want them to gain from seeing that God has changed their lives.” On the one hand, we fail to see how introducing doubt about one’s salvation increases one’s enjoyment. We have seen people experience the opposite – doubt, lack of assurance, insecurity, and even fear as the result of “examining themselves” and concluding they did not know if they have done enough works to “prove” their salvation. Without biblical statements defining how to connect the quantity, kind, and duration of “doing good” with one’s eternal destiny, the individual is left to a subjective evaluation. Logically, such evaluations cannot leave one with the confidence that he or she knows that they have eternal life (1 Jn. 5:13). On the other hand, when someone knows with certainty that his eternal life is secure based on the objective truth of the person and work of Christ, he or she is truly free to enjoy seeing how God has changed their lives. Such change is an issue of growth (sanctification) not initial salvation (justification).
Churchgoers examining themselves
Dr. Grudem expresses concern that the Free Grace position “deprives churchgoers of the benefit of NT warnings to examine themselves because some of them might not be saved.”[47] To this, we respond with five ideas:
(1) If an unbeliever is attending church and evaluates his or her salvation based on their works, they are using the wrong basis for their evaluation. The basis for their salvation must be whether or not they believe in Jesus (John 3:18), not works (Eph. 2:8-9).
(2) Of course, an unbeliever should conclude their works do not “prove” their salvation. Romans 3:23 reminds us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Even a believer who looks too hard at his or her works may well conclude they have “fallen short” and question their salvation. Since no biblical standard exists to quantitatively evaluate how much or what kind of work “proves” one’s salvation, anyone may conclude they have not done enough.
(3) The clear warnings of the gospel are more than adequate to cause an unbeliever to conclude they are not saved, whether or not they attend church. For example:
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18, ESV)
I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins. (John 8:24, ESV).
Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:12, ESV)
Of course, in communicating these truths, one must carefully explain “faith” and perhaps even challenge common misconceptions about how one becomes a Christian (i.e., it is not walking an aisle, praying a prayer, being raised in a Christian home, attending church), but such clarifications differ substantially from evaluating one’s works to determine whether a person is or is not a believer.
(4) The one who “thinks” they believed but, based on their works, became convinced they are not really saved is left in a logical quandary. The solution to being lost is faith alone in Christ alone. So, logically, this person would need to “believe in the Lord Jesus and be saved.”[48] How would we describe how they are to believe this time versus when they thought they believed earlier (assuming, of course, that what they believed in previously was Christ alone)? How would we describe to such a person the difference between “believing” and “really believing”? However, neither we nor the Scriptures ever add the descriptor “really believe.” And so, we cannot logically offer assurance based on their faith; the best we can say is “you are probably saved, but only time will tell whether you have really believed this time or not.”[49]
(5) The warnings throughout the New Testament are real, and most are directed to true believers, not those who may incorrectly think they are believers. These warnings introduce significant accountability for the believer before God. However, the consequences of such warnings are not “you are not really a believer; you are destined for an eternity separated from God” (i.e., God does not threaten them with the possibility of damnation) but rather, “The results of your continued disobedience may result in serious temporal disciple, even to the point of losing your life here (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:30), and loss of reward at the Bema seat (2 Cor. 5:10).” In other words, there are serious consequences for a failed life! Some may say such consequences seem too light for the offense, but such a view fails to grasp the seriousness of both God’s temporal discipline (Heb. 12:7-11) and having one’s works “burn” (1 Cor. 3:15) in the presence of God at the Bema.[50]
Conclusion
The heart of the differences between Dr. Grudem’s position and the Free Grace position boils down to a difference in theological framework. Obviously, Dr. Grudem is free to disagree with the Free Grace position, as we are free to disagree with his. Those who hold a Free Grace position welcome challenges to that position; it helps refine our thinking about the Scriptures and the implications of Free Grace. However, in speaking against the Free Grace position, it is important to represent the position accurately, just as we hope that we accurately represent those whose position differs from ours. We hope this paper has answered some of those inaccuracies and provided broad answers about some of the differences between his position and ours.
| Appendix: FGA Covenant |
| As members of the Evangelical Tradition, we affirm the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the inspired Word of God and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. Furthermore, God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory. As members of this tradition, we are concerned about the clear understanding, presentation, and advancement of the Gospel of God’s Free Grace. We affirm the following: The Grace of God in justification is an unconditional free gift.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.Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.Justification is the act of God to declare us righteous when we believe in Jesus Christ alone.Assurance of justification is the birthright of every believer from the moment of faith in Jesus Christ, and is founded upon the testimony of God in His written Word.Spiritual growth, which is distinct from justification, is God’s expectation for every believer; this growth, however, is not necessarily manifested uniformly in every believer.The Gospel of Grace should always be presented with such clarity and simplicity that no impression is left that justification requires any step, response, or action in addition to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. COVENANT: In agreement with these affirmations, we covenant to work together graciously and enthusiastically to advance this Gospel of Grace, and to communicate with a positive and gracious tone toward all others, both inside and outside the Free Grace Alliance. |
[1]This paper cannot give a full response to each point. Our intent is to give enough information to explain the problem and provide a solution. The reader is encouraged to consult some of the works cited to “dig deeper.”
[2] http://freegracealliance.com/covenant.htm, copy attached as appendix.
[3] Wayne Grudem, “The Historic Protestant Viewpoint and the Free Grace Viewpoint on Conversion (Faith, Repentance, Justification),” Scottsdale Bible Church, February 16, 2014. An audio version of the presentation is available at http://www.christianessentialssbc.com/messages/message_2014.asp, as are his written notes.
[4] Wayne Grudem, class notes for the presentation referenced in note 2. Emphasis his. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations of Dr. Grudem refer to this work (either the audio portion or the written notes).
[5] The Grace Evangelical Society has a doctrinal statement that differs from that of the FGA, but, like the FGA statement, does not fully define a free grace system.
[6] The Phoenix Seminary statement of faith says this regarding salvation: “Concerning the Human Condition: We believe all human beings are lost and sinful by nature. Consequently, salvation can only be accomplished by God’s grace through regeneration and justification by the Holy Spirit. Salvation cannot be earned. It is a gift from God, received only by faith in Jesus Christ.” (http://www.ps.edu/about/statement-of-faith/, accessed April 17, 2014). The Scottsdale Bible Church statement of belief says “We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures as a representative and substitutionary sacrifice, and that all who believe in Him are redeemed and justified on the ground of His shed blood.” (http://scottsdalebible.com/about/we-believe/, accessed April 17, 2014).
[7] Of course, one might argue that these organizations do not need to define the terms more precisely or that the writers of these documents assumed the meaning of “faith” given by Dr. Grudem. However, this does not seem to be the case, at least in the case of the Phoenix Seminary statement of faith. When Dr. Fankhauser received his M.Div. from Phoenix Seminary in 1995, the prominent understanding of the meaning of “faith” by the faculty matched that of the FGA, not that of Dr. Grudem. In fact, it was through the teachings of professors such as Dr. Earl Radmacher, Dr. Kem Oberholtzer, and Dr. William Yarger, then resident faculty of Phoenix Seminary, that he received much of his grounding in Free Grace Theology.
[8] Since the audience of this response may include those not familiar with Greek, all Greek terms in the body of the article will be transliterated.
[9] William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), s.v. . The definition includes three other entries not pertinent here.
[10] Charles C. Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response. GraceLife Edition (1992, 1997), 58-59. Copies of this work may be obtained at http://www.GraceLife.org
[11] Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House and Dallas: Rendencion Viva, 1989), 31.
[12] Hodges, 39. Emphasis his.
[13] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Bible Doctrine (Leicester, England, Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, Zondervan Publishing House, 2004), 713. Emphasis his.
[15] Nor does the Grace Evangelical Society’s Affirmation of Belief.
[16] Bing, Lordship Salvation, 60-92; Bing, GraceNotes no. 22, “Repentance: What’s In a Word,” http://www.gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes/pdf/gracenotes22.pdf, accessed May 15, 2104; Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 389–390; Richard A. Seymour, “Repentance and the Free Gift of God” in J.B. Hixon, et al, ed., Freely By His Grace (Duluth, MN: Grace Gospel Press, 2012); Robert N. Wilkin, “Repentance as a Condition for Salvation in the New Testament,” Th.D. Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1985. In fairness, Wilkin has since changed his view of repentance to mean “Harmony with God” (see footnote 17); Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 3:372-378. A.T. Robertson briefly defines repentance (metanoia) as “change of mind and life” and then adds, ” It is a linguistic and theological tragedy that we have to go on using ‘repentance’ for μετανοια [metanoia].” (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament [Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933], IV:241.)
[17] David R. Anderson Ph.D., Free Grace Soteriology, rev. ed., ed. James S. Reitman (Houston: Grace Theology Press, 2012), location 2617, Kindle. Zane Hodges holds a similar view which he calls “Harmony with God.” He summarizes, ” The call to repentance is broader than the call to eternal salvation. It is rather a call to harmony between both the creature and His Creator, a call to fellowship between sinful men and a forgiving God.” (Hodges, Absolutely Free, 160, emphasis his). He adds, in Harmony with God, “(1) that repentance is not in any way a condition for eternal salvation; (2) repentance is the decision to turn from sin and avoid, or bring to an end, God’s temporal judgment” (Zane C. Hodges, Harmony With God: A Fresh Look at Repentance [Dallas: Rendencion Viva, 2001], 57).
[18] William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), s.v. “metanoia,” “metanoeō,” G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1937), s.v., “metanoia,” “metanoeō,” Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D., The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Lafayette, IN: ARQA, 1979), s.v., “metanoia,” “metanoeō.”
[19] Behm and Wurthwein, s.v., “,” Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, ed., trans Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Wordbook of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967).
[20] Ibid. Despite this observation, Behm and Wurthwein take a view similar to that of Dr. Grudem when discussing the biblical passages.
[21] Bing, “Repentance: What’s In a Word.”
[23]Ryrie and others show that nuances about the meanings exist among those who agree in general with either of the two basic definitions of repentance. For example, Dillow writes, “We should look to nicham, ‘to regret,’ rather than to shuv, ‘to return,’ as the probable background word to the New Testament usage of the metanoia word group… This suggests that metanoeō refers to regret or admission of guilt, rather than turning from sin” (Joseph Dillow, Final Destiny: The Future Reign of the Servant Kings [Houston: Grace Theology Press, 2013], 39). He summarizes, “In the New Testament the metanoia word group is used three ways. First, the major use in the Gospels is a call to the nation to admit their departure from God and the Law and to receive a national forgiveness… Second, in many other passages the call to repent is addressed to those who are already believers. In those cases, the call to repent is a call for them to confess their sins and admit they are wrong and thus to be restored to fellowship with God. Third, when nonbelievers are called on to repent, it is in a most general sense a call to acknowledge guilt before God and their need for forgiveness. As such, repentance is a necessary precursor to saving faith… That necessary precursor must then be followed by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for personal salvation” (Dillow, 54, emphasis added).
[25] Anderson, location 2617, Kindle. Emphasis his.
[26] Anderson, Location 2625, Kindle.
[27] Anderson, Locations 2886-2899, Kindle.
[28] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), 2 Cor. 7:9.
[29] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 627.
[30] We recognize that salvation is referenced in many other places, however these three books focus on initial salvation more than the other books. John includes as part of his purpose of writing that his readers would believe that Jesus is the Christ (John 20:31). Many take John’s primary audience to be unbelievers. Galatians was written because the Galatians were being swayed by “another (allos = another of a different kind) gospel;” and Romans was Paul’s magnum opus about the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith (1:16-17) in which Paul clearly delineates the sinfulness of all people, the fact of justification by faith alone in Christ alone, and principles for Christian living (sanctification).
[31] Paul uses the hapax, “ἀμετανόητος,” (unrepentant) in the next verse. Even in these two verses, the Free Grace options for repentance make perfect sense.
[32] When one believes in Christ as Savior, he or she has certainly changed their mind and heart about something (their sin, their condemnation, their need, Christ’s provision, Christ’s promise, etc.).
[34] This does not mean that repentance does not occur (depending on how one defines it), but that the necessary condition for salvation is to simply believe in Jesus.
[35] “Obedience to the Father’s will determines entrance into the kingdom, not professed admiration for Jesus… During Jesus’ ministry doing the will of God boiled down to believing that Jesus was the Messiah and responding appropriately (John 6:29)” Constable, Matt. 22:21.
[36] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 792.
[37] Ibid., 793-794, emphasis his.
[39] Dr. Grudem lists three questions one can ask concerning what can give a believer genuine assurance. None of them directly references the promises of Jesus or the objective truth of the cross. First, “Do I have a present trust in Christ for salvation?” Notice the emphasis is on present faith, not “did I believe at some point in Jesus?” Second, “Is there evidence of a regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in my heart?” And third, “Do I see a long-term pattern of growth in my Christian walk?” (Ibid., 803-805).
[40] Anderson, Location 4276, Kindle.
[41] All within the Free Grace movement agree every believer will appear before the Bema Seat of Christ for evaluation based on what they did in this life. All agree such judgment is not for determining one’s eternal destiny. All understand there is some level of negative consequence that may befall the believer (“receive… for what he has done… whether good or evil,” 2 Cor. 5:10; “each one’s work will become manifest… and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done… if anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved,” 1 Corinthians 3:13–16). Not all within the Free Grace camp agree on what this negative aspect actually means, whether simply the loss of reward or something more.
[42] Tom Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Galaxie Software, 2003), 2 Tim. 2:11.
[43] “Though likely the work of Martin Luther, the cliché itself is formally recorded for the first time in Calvin’s Acts of the Council of Trent, with the Antidote (1547), Cannon 11, where he states ‘It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone'” (Fred R. Lybrand, Back to Faith: Reclaiming Gospel Clarity in an Age of Incongruence [Xulon Press, 2009], 4-5). By “cliché,” Lybrand references this statement by Calvin and its various forms used by reformed writers. Dr. Grudem quotes this same statement by Calvin, including its broader context, in his Scottsdale Bible Church presentation (footnote 3).
[45] Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 443–444.
[46] Dr. Grudem cites several resources, including Calvin, the Formula of Concord, the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Westminster Confession of Faith, to support this idea that saving faith never being alone is the “the repeated teaching of the great Reformation teachers and confessions.” If “upholding the Reformation doctrine of sola fide” requires agreement with such documents and their statements about repentance, the necessity of outwardly evident works and the like, then Dr. Grudem is correct in saying that the Free Grace movement is not upholding that doctrine. Free Grace doctrine will disagree in places with Reformed doctrine. If, however, what one must agree upon is faith alone in Christ alone, the Free Grace movement clearly upholds the biblical doctrine of sola fide, as do the Reformers and Dr. Grudem, even if the movement disagrees with some of the other convictions of the Reformers.
[47] In the handout prepared for the presentation at Scottsdale Bible Church, Dr. Grudem listed a number of passages that addressed examining ourselves and/or warnings for believers. Included were a number of references from 1 John. The issue in 1 John boils down to why John wrote the book. This question largely hinges on the phrase “these things” in 1 John 5:13, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” Dr. Grudem takes “these things” as referring to all that precedes the verse. Thus, 1 John addresses “tests for life.” Most Free Grace people limit “these things” to the immediately preceding verses, but not the entire book, and thus the book addresses “tests for living” (some use the phrase fellowship, or abiding, or experiencing eternal life). Whatever the precise wording used, the common idea among those who hold a Free Grace view is that the book does not deal primarily with tests to determine if a person is or is not a “true” believer. Anderson summarizes the meaning of “these things”: “But what about these things? Isn’t this a reference to the entire letter, that is, a thematic statement of the book? In other words, we don’t just need to have faith in order to know that we have eternal life, but also: keeping God’s commandments, loving one’s brothers, resisting the world and the devil, etc. Right? No, the statement ‘these things we/I write (or have written) to you’ occurs several times in the letter (1:4, 2:1, 2:26). In each case, it refers to the material just written in the previous section. It does not pick up all the material from the beginning of the letter (see especially 2:26 to make this clear). In 1 John 5:13 the ‘these things’ points to the testimony/witness (marturia, the noun, or martureō, the verb) which has been mentioned seven times in 1 John 5:9-12… what John is arguing for in this passage is the credibility of God’s testimony (witness)… And this witness or testimony is that God has given us eternal life and this life is in His Son… Notice that we are not called upon to search our faith to see if it is real… We are called upon to have faith in what God says about His Son.” (David R. Anderson, Maximum Joy: First John – Relationship or Fellowship? [Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2005], 239, emphasis his).
[48] “In terms of pastoral care with those who have strayed away from their Christian profession, we should realize that Calvinists and Arminians… will both counsel a ‘backslider’ in the same way… According to the Calvinist, such a person never really was a Christian in the first place and is not one now. But in both cases the biblical counsel given would be the same: ‘You do not appear to be a Christian now – you must repent of your sins and trust in Christ for your salvation!'” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 806, emphasis his.)
[49] Although this may sound sarcastic, it is not. The problem and the logic are both real. Dr. Fankhauser knows of at least one pastor who would make this comment about people who came to faith in Jesus.
[50] An examination of each of the many passages listed by Dr. Grudem is beyond the scope of this paper, but interpretations of each passage exist that preserve the warning or the challenge to examine oneself, and recognize that such examinations are not to determine whether one is ‘truly’ a believer. For example, concerning 2 Cor. 13:5, (‘test yourself to see if you are in the faith’), Bing argues that Paul expects the Corinthians to affirm their salvation, not question it. By doing so, they confirm the legitimacy of Paul’s ministry. They sought proof that Christ was speaking in Paul (2 Cor. 13:3) and Paul uses the very ones questioning him as proof of his authenticity. Paul proclaimed the gospel to them, they believed, therefore Christ is in them. Since Christ is in them, Paul’s ministry is legitimate and he is a true apostle. Bing writes, “Nothing is mentioned about examining their works or their faith; that is foreign to the context. If works were to be examined, the Corinthians would fail miserably (1 Cor 3:1-3; 5:9-6:20; 11:21-30). Neither are they told to examine their faith, but to see if they are ‘in the faith.’… It seems best to take ‘in the faith’ as an objective reference to being in the Christian body of beliefs (see for example, Titus 1:13). Likewise, Jesus Christ in them would be another objective indication of their genuine salvation (1 John 5:11-13)… Paul is not asking them to examine themselves because he doubts their salvation, but because he is sure of it… The Apostle Paul does not question the Corinthians’ eternal salvation. Quite the contrary, he affirms it many times in this epistle (1:21-22; 3:2-3; 6:14; 8:9; and here in the context, 13:11-14)… One of Paul’s purposes for writing is to defend and humbly reassert his apostleship (5:12-13; 10:1-11:33; 12:11-33). The Corinthian Christians are confused and want ‘proof’ (from dokimén, passing a test, being approved) that Christ is speaking through Paul (13:3)… The false teachers seek to ‘disqualify’ (from adokimos, not passing a test, unqualified, disapproved) Paul as one who does not pass the test of an authentic apostle… The Corinthians themselves are his credentials of authenticity (3:1-3)… Of course Christ is speaking through Paul, because Paul preached Christ to them and they were saved (1 Cor. 15:1-2; 2 Cor. 1:19), so Paul must be authentic… The way the question is asked in verse 5, ‘Do you not know yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you?’ expects a positive answer – ‘Of course you know that Christ is in you!’ The wording of the original language in the phrase after that, ‘unless indeed you are disqualified,’ uses irony to mean the opposite – obviously they know they are not disqualified from eternal salvation. Verse 6 then follows with more irony – The readers were questioning Paul, but after looking at their own salvation they should know he has passed the test of authenticity too.” (Charles Bing, “Doubtful Self-examination in 2 Corinthians 13:5,” GraceNotes – no. 53, http://www.gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes/?id=53, accessed June 18, 2014). Constable cites in his discussion several additional sources that support the idea that this is not a test of the legitimacy of one’s salvation (Constable, 2 Cor. 13:5).