Top Ten Books Ever Read

I was recently asked for a list of the top books I have ever read. It did not take me long to compile a list. Out of the hundreds of books I have read over the years, there have been some that have made a particular impression on me more than others. Although I am young and still have many more years of reading to do, the following list encompasses the best books I have read up to this point in my life.

1. The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin.

Standing at the top of my list is an influential and profound classic by one of the greatest theologians of the Christian church. I have been reading through Calvin’s Institutes this past year and I am absolutely amazed at the profundity of his insight into the biblical text and the precision of his theological formulation. On top of this, I have found Calvin’s tome to be devotional and edifying. There is no wonder in my mind why The Institutes makes so many modern theologians’ top ten lists. I really cannot say enough about it. Highly, highly recommended.

2. Redemption: Accomplished and Applied by John Murray.

This book helped me formulate a biblical perspective of salvation. It presents one of the best (and convincing!) treatments of the doctrine of definite atonement that I have ever read. No Christian should go through life without reading this book at least once.

3. Saved by Grace by Anthony Hoekema.

After I first read this book by Hoekema, I was absolutely stunned that I had never heard of it before. It was that good! Similar to Murray’s book in content, it convincingly offers a systematic treatment of soteriology in brief compass.

4. Knowing God by J.I. Packer.

My theology professor in college assigned this book to his students every year. He informed us that when we came to the last page of this book we would be utterly disappointed that we were finished with it! After reading this book twice since then, I can testify to the truthfulness of that sentiment. Packer’s book is concise, clear, and extremely deep. No believer can afford to miss out on this one!

5. The Cross of Christ by John Stott.

In light of Stott’s death this past year, it is fitting that his weighty book makes my list. I found his book to be extremely helpful in centering my mind on the core of the Christian message—the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no doubt in my mind that Stott’s book will go down in the annals of church history.

6. The Gospel According to Jesus by John MacArthur.

What can I say about this book? MacArthur’s work had a profound impact on my life when I first read it. He crystalizes what it means to truly believe in Jesus Christ. All of his books on the Gospel since then—The Gospel According the Apostles, Hard to Believe, and Slave, among others—have reemphasized this same theme. Anyone who desires to know what salvation is all about—an active and submissive trust in the Lord Jesus Christ—should read this now classic work.

7. We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry by G.K. Beale

Although this book is fairly recent (being written in 2008), I include it here because it was somewhat paradigm shifting for me. It was my first introduction to the discipline of biblical theology and really advanced a compelling thesis. Since reading it, I have never read the Bible (particularly its statements on idolatry) the same.

8. The Duties of Parents by J.C. Ryle

Since becoming a father almost two years ago, I have read several parenting books. None of them have been as penetrating as J.C. Ryle’s classic. In fact, I would say that many of the modern parenting books have simply rehashed and reproduced the substance of Ryle’s book. Every Christian parent needs to read this book. It is a book you can read in one sitting and it will shape your understanding of the role of a parent more than any other book.

9. Paradise Restored by David Chilton

I need to qualify this book right from the get-go lest I be mistaken for a Reconstructionist. I greatly disagree with many of Chilton’s other works—especially those on theonomy—and I do not see eye to eye with him on everything. I include this book, however, because it had an unusual impact on my life when I was younger. I first read this book after high school and it shook the foundations of my dispensationalism (the reverberations of which are still in effect!). Chilton writes from a partial-preterist/postmillennial perspective (which I entertained for a number of years after reading it). Although I disagree with him now, I still look back on this book as formative and influential.

10. The Sovereignty of God by A.W. Pink

I had a professor in college tell me that this book made him a Calvinist overnight. After reading it, I can see why. Pink’s approach to God’s sovereignty is thoroughly biblical and organized in such a way that makes it difficult to deny God’s exhaustive, intricate, detailed, and all-encompassing sovereignty in all things—including the salvation of some and the damnation of others. If someone asks me for a good introduction to the doctrines of sovereign grace, I usually first recommend this book by Pink.

What are your favorite, most impacting books?

Fred Lybrand responds to my review

My recent review of Dr. Fred Lybrand's Back to Faith has been posted over on Fred's website. You can see it here. He is planning on posting a series of articles that respond to some of the objections I made in my review. His comment thread has also been lively, as others have responded to some of my comments.

I am glad to spark some conversation over these things and look forward to Lybrand's replies. I am also eager to defend the truth of the Reformed understanding of salvation, including Lordship salvation. In the coming days, I may also offer responses to some of the discussions that take place over at his blog. My prayer is that Christ will be honored through brotherly exchange and that the truth of the Word of God will be upheld.

Review of Fred Lybrand's "Back to Faith"

Back to Faith: Reclaiming Gospel Clarity in an Age of Incongruence. By Fred R. Lybrand. Xulon Press, 2009.

Thirty or so years after the “Lordship salvation” controversy overtook the evangelical world, the debate still continues. While the issue no longer is at the center of theological conversation, the two sides in the debate—typically identified as “Lordship salvation” and “free grace theology”—continue to produce books. Representing the free grace camp, Fred R. Lybrand has recently contributed to the discussion with his book entitled Back to Faith: Reclaiming Gospel Clarity in an Age of Incongruence. Right off the bat Lyband’s readers are prepared for the book’s thesis through his provocative dedication to both John MacArthur and Zane Hodges, veteran players in the lordship debate. It quickly becomes apparent which person had the greater influence upon Lybrand.

The purpose of Lybrand’s book is to call his readers back to an understanding of the Gospel that is free from any inconsistencies. While many evangelical Christians hold firmly to the doctrine of sola fide—believing that salvation is granted by grace alone through faith alone—they also unconsciously undermine the power of this doctrine by maintaining that good works should necessarily and inevitably flow from faith. This incongruity is concisely seen in the popular cliché, coined during the Reformation, “it is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone.” Although it is trite, Lybrand argues that this cliché is not true. He explains,

Does faith guarantee works? In the final analysis the best we may be able to say with certainty is, ‘God alone knows.’ However, there is a strong case to be made for the possibility that works are not guaranteed in the life of the believer, and so may be described as ‘normal but not necessary.’ If this distinction is not kept in mind and the cliché is given too much room, then…works inevitably invade the gospel of ‘faith alone in Christ alone’ and works will undermine assurance because of the confidence rested on them (from the preface, x).

Lybrand subjects the cliché—and the theology that stands behind it—to a rigorous critique. While he does point out the logical, theological, and practical problems inherent in the cliché, his most incisive critique comes at the level of the exegetical. He writes, “The cliché, ‘it is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone, is incessantly promoted on the basis of one supreme passage: James 2:14-26” (63). Lybrand attempts to show that despite the popular approaches to this passage—especially those perpetuated by the Reformed tradition—the central message of this passage does not support the theological assumptions codified by the cliché. Lybrand explains,

James is concerned with dead faith; however this faith is a true faith that can die, rather than a false faith that never existed…James is addressing brethren and beloved brethren (James 2:5) and establishing concern for dead faith. Therefore, James 2:13 speaks of ‘judgment being without mercy’ as directed, not to the lost or unsaved which occurs at the Great White Throne of Judgment (Rev. 20:11-15), but rather at the Bema Seat judgment where believers are evaluated according to their works (Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:9-10)” (101).

Thus, contrary to popular opinion, James has in mind very temporal, rather than eternal matters in this text. Viewed in this light, the cliché has very little to stand upon. Indeed, Lybrand notes, “The cliché…lives or dies by James 2” (108).

What can be made of Lybrand’s thesis? Before offering a brief response to his arguments, I want to first note a few positive aspects of his book. First, although his work stands in line with typical free grace material, it does offer a fresh and extensive exegetical section on James 2:14-26. Out of all of the free grace treatments I have read, Lybrand’s is one of the most formidable. Secondly, Lybrand does a good job keeping his thesis in mind throughout the book. He does not chase rabbit trails, but sticks tightly to his arguments pertaining to the cliché. A last strength I will mention is that Lybrand evinces a definite zeal for the Gospel. Although I do not agree with his conclusions, I am so grateful for his concern and sensitivity to proclaiming a clear, biblical Gospel message. His passionate love for the doctrine of sola fide is evident all throughout the book and I am confident that readers will be challenged by the appeals he offers.

Having stated the strengths of the book, let me now turn to the weaknesses. As I see it, Lybrand’s book suffers from a number of significant problems. Space prevents me from adequately responding to his accusations that the cliché—and the theology that undergirds it—is logically, theologically, and pragmatically invalid. In my estimation, Lybrand fails to convince in all three of these areas. But, then again, these are not his most powerful objections to the theology of the cliché. It is his exegetical critiques—centered mainly on James 2:14-26—that have the most teeth. These teeth, though, are crooked and in dire need of straightening.

In response to Lybrand’s exegetical objections, I offer the following brief defense of James 2:14-26. If what Lybrand said about the cliché is true—that it “lives or dies by James 2”—then by defending the Reformed interpretation of James 2 I will both vindicate the theology of the cliché and undermine Lybrand’s thesis with one fell swoop. To that end, I offer the ensuing four exegetical arguments

First, a bird’s eye view of James 2:14-26 suggests that it concerns something other than temporal salvation. The collective terms used by James throughout this passage such as “faith,” “save,” “works,” and “justify” are found in other NT texts that clearly deal with salvific issues. For instance, Romans 4:1-5:11 is a section of Scripture in which similar terms are found—“works” (4:1), “justified” (4:1; 5:1), “faith” (5:1), and “saved” (5:9-10). On top of this, both sections use Abraham as an example of faith and reference the same OT text for support (Gen. 15:6). These parallels suggest that James 2:14-23 has similar concerns in mind—issues relating to eternal salvation.

Secondly, both the immediate and wider contexts of James 2:14-26 lead to this conclusion as well. The passage is sandwiched between two statements concerning the judgment (2:13; 3:1). While it is possible that these may refer to the bema seat judgment in which Christians will be rewarded, it seems better to take these as a reference to the judgment unbelievers will undergo. James suggests that his readers can avoid this judgment if they have the right kind of faith: “can that faith save him?” (2:14). Save him from what? Since this follows on the heels of 2:13, it seems that true faith delivers a person from some kind of judgment. Because Paul declares that all believers must appear before the judgment (bema) seat (2 Cor. 5:10), there is no way that James can have this particular judgment in mind since he clearly indicates that those who have faith will be delivered from this tribunal.

Thirdly, the word “save” (sozo) is used five times by James (1:21; 2:14; 4:12; 5:15; 5:20). Although Lybrand claims “each reference deals with temporal deliverance and not salvation from hell to heaven” (79), a closer reading of the data yields a different statistic. In my reading, at least four out of five times James uses the term “save” in reference to eternal salvation. In James 1:21 he says, “…in humility receive the implanted word which is able to save your souls.” When this verse is viewed next to 1:18, it becomes clear that the same word that brings about a believer’s regeneration also results in his salvation. In 4:12, the word “save” has even clearer connotations: “There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy.” It is hard to see this in reference to anything other than eternal salvation. James also seems to use the word “save” in a similar way in 5:20 when he writes, “My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” These references demonstrate, at the very least, that Lybrand’s claim is not as cut and dry as it appears to be. Of course, even if James used the word “save” in a temporal sense in every text outside of 2:14, he still could have used the term in its technical salvific sense in 2:14. But a brief survey of his work does seem to yield the conclusion that the majority of the uses of “save” in James refer to eternal salvation. Before moving on from this point, it is worth mentioning that Moo notes that “of the 30 occurrences of ‘save’ outside of James in the NT epistles, 29 clearly refer to eschatological deliverance, the possible exception being Heb. 5:7” (The Letter of James, 124).

A final point to make in regards to James 2:14-26 is that there seem to be direct parallels between Jesus’ teaching and James’ writing. Of particular importance are the similarities between the parable of the sheep and the goats recorded in Matt. 25:31-46 and James 2:14-26. In both accounts, the illustration is used of a person who is lacking in sufficient clothing (Matt. 25:36, 43; Js. 2:15-16). In the parable, those who did not help the person in need wind up in “eternal punishment” (v. 46), and in James’ account those who fail to meet the practical needs of the destitute are said to have a “dead” faith (v. 17). It is hard not to see the connection between these two passages. What Jesus recognized in the “goats” is the same thing James recognized in those with “dead faith.” Surely the judgment the goats were in danger of is the same judgment those with dead faith were in danger of.

There is no doubt that Lybrand and his free grace counterparts will fail to be impressed by these arguments. It is telling, though, that the vast majority of Christian commentators—from the patristic era to the present—have been persuaded by the evidence presented above, as a perusal of the literature on James will amply demonstrate. Indeed, as far as I can tell, no one outside of the free grace camp understands James 2:14-26 the way Lybrand does.

One can certainly appreciate Lybrand’s concern for the Gospel of grace and his zeal to defend the doctrine of sola fide. In the end, though, it seems to me that his understanding of this doctrine is diminished. Lybrand’s thesis notwithstanding, the historical and biblical doctrine of sola fide is accurately represented in the cliché, “it is therefore faith alone which justifies, but the faith that justifies in never alone.”

I would like to express my thanks to Dr. Lybrand for a gracious and generous review copy of his book.

Update

It is has been a while since I posted. I am just finishing up my fall semester at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and it kept me extremely busy. I am very glad for all that I learned this semester. My Puritanism class was excellent and I learned to appreciate the body of literature they left behind and continue to pursue their literature. I wrote a paper for that class on "the Father of Puritanism," William Perkins and attempted to show how his theology is very much in line with John Calvin's. Some scholars have suggested that there is a great chasm separating Puritan theology from Calvin's theology, but I think the historical record indicates the exact opposite. The true heirs of Calvin's teaching were the Puritans and those in the Reformed tradition.

I also learned much from my class on leadership with Dr. R. Albert Mohler. He shared many personal stories from his time here at Southern and all of them were fascinating. He also gave many practical insights applicable to the ministry of Christian leadership. I know I will be fishing out of the stream of his thought for years to come.

As the winter approaches, my family and I look forward to the holidays. Lord willing we will be making a trip up to Oregon in December to spend the Christmas with my parents. I will also be writing a few reviews for Credo Magazine. I am reviewing and briefly responding to a free grace book written by Fred Lybrand (who, incidentally, I actually had the pleasure of interacting with via email). I also am slated to review a book by Dr. David Jeremiah entitled "I Never Though I'd See the Day." I have always had the utmost respect for Dr. Jeremiah and, though I do disagree with him at times, am happy to review his book.

Other than that, I will provide another update soon. Be looking for my reviews!

Peter O'Brien's "The Letter to the Hebrews": A Review

I have been really captivated by the book of Hebrews as of late. This fascination has led me to review two recent commentaries on the epistle. I previously posted a review of David Allen's commentary that I did for Credo Magazine. In this post, I want to make available a review that I did on P.T. O'Brien's commentary on Hebrews (which will also be posted on Credo Mag's website). Hope you enjoy!

The Letter to the Hebrews. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. By Peter T. O’Brien. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

For the past several years I have made it my goal to collect the best commentaries on each book of the Bible. As would be expected, the top rated ones are usually also the oldest and most proven. Occasionally, though, a recent commentary will come along that has all the features and qualities that mark older exegetical works. While it may be too early to tell, I anticipate that P.T. O’Brien’s recent commentary on Hebrews will one day take its stand alongside these other valuable and time-tested resources.

The Letter to the Hebrews is O’Brien’s latest contribution to the ongoing discussion of the fascinating and mysterious epistle of Hebrews. Far from being a redundant voice in a chorus of commentators, though, O’Brien’s work sounds forth a different note that puts the magnificence of the book of Hebrews on display. What makes O’Brien’s treatment stand head and shoulders above the rest can be discussed under two main headings. First, O’Brien presents his comments in a logical and organized manner. Second, his interpretations are textually derived and theologically grounded.

The lay out of O’Brien’s commentary makes it an accessible guide through the book of Hebrews. Some commentaries have so much technical detail and an overabundance of information that readers can easily get lost in them. Other commentaries fail to clearly distinguish between one verse and another, making them less dependable to busy pastors and teachers who often need quick guidance. Still others excel in terms of their readability but fail in terms of providing helpful exegetical and theological information.

Not so with O’Brien’s commentary. His work is organized and it is structured around a logical and clearly defined outline. O’Brien’s comments are thorough, but not overly technical or verbose. It is clear when his discussion is finished and when he has moved on to another topic or point. Moreover, he covers each verse of Hebrews in a sequential way, which allows readers to easily locate his comments on any given reference. On top of this, O’Brien’s explanations are also unusually lucid; never was I left scratching my head after reading his interpretations.

Out of the many positive elements of The Letter to the Hebrews, I was most pleased with O’Brien’s consistently careful handling of the text of Hebrews. Time and again, I found myself in substantial agreement with his interpretations. To cite but one example, I found his understanding of the warning passages to be well reasoned and exegetically sound. O’Brien rightly argues that these passages warn against the perils of apostasy and the sure judgment that awaits those who “fall away from the living God” (3:12). In line with classic Reformed exegetes, he holds that those who heed the warnings and persevere show themselves to be true believers, while those who reject the exhortations and fall away reveal that they never truly possessed saving faith to begin with.

Although I take a slightly different approach to these passages than he does, I sympathize with the Reformed perspective of the warning passages. Not only does it have a long historical pedigree, it makes good sense of the warnings and also harmonizes well with the clear New Testament teaching of both the preservation and perseverance of the saints. O’Brien’s comments on Hebrews 3:14 are representative of the way he views the warning passages: “The author [of Hebrews] is aware…that there is a transitory or spurious faith that does not persevere. Accordingly, [his reader’s] being sharers in Christ is dependent on their holding fast to the end…such perseverance will demonstrate that their faith is genuine” (151-2).

O’Brien also does a superior job explaining how the writer of Hebrews uses and interprets Old Testament texts. In several places, O’Brien’s expertise is showcased. His background information on the concept of “rest” (Heb. 4) is insightful and allows him to properly identify the way the writer of Hebrews uses this term as a picture of salvation. Other instances that show O’Brien’s adept understanding of the OT are his discussions of Melchizedek and the New Covenant. He avoids falling into the various traps surrounding typology and he does not erroneously suggest, as some commentators do, that the New Testament writers misuse the Old Testament. Rather, the NT authors simply develop themes and ideas that are inherent to the OT but are often overlooked by casual readers. O’Brien does a great job bringing this out and his method serves as a model of how to apply biblical theology to biblical study.

Overall, O’Brien’s exegesis is balanced and his theological conclusions are not excessive. I am confident that readers of differing theological backgrounds can all benefit from his excellent work. In many ways, O’Brien is an ideal exegete. He judiciously approaches the text of Hebrews and he presents his conclusions with grace. I highly recommend The Letter to the Hebrews as a resource beneficial to both scholars and students.

Review of David Allen's "Hebrews"

I again have the opportunity to post another review on Credo Magazine's website. This time I will review Dr. David Allen's new commentary on Hebrews. David Allen is the Professor of Preaching and Dean of the School of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Below is a copy of my review.

Hebrews. New American Commentary 35. By David L. Allen. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2010.

By Lucas Bradburn

Amidst the influx of interest in the book of Hebrews in recent years comes David Allen’s Hebrews in the New American Commentary series. Allen’s commentary on Hebrews is chocked full of insights. Although not without its faults, Allen’s commentary excels on at least two counts: in it’s discussion of the historical background and in it’s theological applications.

Borne out of years of careful investigation, the introductory chapters to Allen’s commentary are perhaps the best of the book. Sifting through years of scholarly opinion, he carefully lays out a case for the Lukan authorship of the book, though such a claim is not without debate today. Along the way, Allen suggests that Hebrews was most likely penned prior to A.D. 70 and was addressed to a group of former Jewish priests residing in Antioch (see 23-79). While Allen approaches the issues with confidence, he also does so with humility. Allen gives due consideration to the judgments of commentators who have preceded him (both ancient and modern), but he is not afraid to state his disagreements with them. Such disagreements, however, are well articulated and reveal Allen’s expertise in dealing with the issues involved.

Another strength of Allen’s commentary is its theological nature. While Allen spends an ample amount of time exegeting the text of Hebrews, he also provides careful theological analysis of each section he treats and sets the book of Hebrews into a doctrinal framework. As I moved through Allen’s exegetical work I found myself wondering if he would address specific theological issues that surrounded texts he was dealing with. In almost every case he brought up issues I had hoped he would and he made clear his theological convictions, many of which I am in full agreement with.

Several examples could be cited here, but let me briefly mention a few that stood out. First, Allen highlights the implications of Hebrews 2:1-4 on the debate between cessationists and non-cessationists. Although he admits that the passage does not specifically address this issue (nor does it definitively settle the debate), he rightly notes, “The implication of this [passage] would be that the sign gifts lasted only as long as the eyewitnesses—meaning the apostles and perhaps others who heard the Lord—lived” (198). He clarifies his statement when he writes, “The text seems to imply that once the eyewitnesses died the miraculous gifts ceased” (199). Allen’s point here is well taken and certainly should not go unnoticed by those who hold that the miraculous gifts have not ceased.

Second, Allen correctly defends the concept of substitutionary atonement from Hebrews 2:17. He briefly but ably defends the translation of hilaskomai as “to make propitiation” against the translation “to make expiation.” Allen says, “Evangelical theology insists on taking hilaskomai in the sense of ‘propitiation’ because that is the meaning of the word and that is the heart of the doctrine of the atonement” (225).

Third, Allen rightly argues that Jesus Christ was impeccable based on Hebrews 4:15. He does recognize, of course, that “Whether Jesus could or could not have sinned, the fact is he did not sin according to Heb 4:15,” and this is the author’s main point. However, Allen goes on to say, “The preponderance of evidence seems to tilt the scales in favor of the impeccability position” (312). On this I am in full agreement with him. More examples could be given, but the sampling above upholds my analysis that Allen’s theological applications are often right on and well argued.

Despite the overall usefulness of Allen’s commentary, there are at least two weaknesses (in my opinion) that are worth mentioning. First, I take exception to Allen’s interpretation of Hebrews 2:9. He claims that this verse “points to the universal nature of the atonement: Christ died for the sins of all people” (212). Although his discussion is thorough, it is curious that he neglects to address the observation made by many Reformed commentators that the term translated by the NIV as “everyone” (pantos) is paralleled (and most likely defined by) other words in the same context that narrows its referent. For instance, along with identifying Christ’s death as being on behalf of “everyone” (v. 9), the writer of Hebrews also mentions that it was for “many sons” (v. 10), “those who are made holy” (v. 11), “brothers” (v. 11-12), “the children God has given [Jesus]” (v. 14), “Abraham’s descendants” (v. 16), and “the people” (v. 17). It seems to me that these other designations should influence one’s understanding of the word “everyone.” In this case, it seems better to understand the word in reference to all those whom God has chosen to be saved (i.e. the elect) rather than to all people of all time. In my understanding, then, this verse supports a limited, rather than a universal atonement.

Second, Allen’s interpretation of the warning passages faces several difficulties. Allen adopts what he calls the “Loss of Rewards” view of these texts. As he explains it, “Essentially, this view interprets the group in Heb 6:4-6 [and in the other warning passages] as genuine believers who ‘fall away’ in the sense of willful disobedience to God. They do not commit apostasy in the traditional theological sense of the term. They do not finally deny Christ. They do fail to press on to maturity by virtue of direct disobedience to God’s will and word. The judgment that these believers incur does not involve loss of salvation. Their judgment is more accurately designated ‘discipline,’ which involves both a temporal and an eschatological aspect. It is not final judgment in the sense of eternal loss…These are genuine believers who are in danger of forfeiting some new covenant blessings in this life as well as rewards at the Judgment seat of Christ” (377).

However, there is an inconsistency in Allen’s argument. The problem becomes apparent when Allen seeks to determine the identity of the audience being addressed in the warning sections. Especially when dealing with Hebrews 6, Allen appeals to the language used in the text and argues that the terms, when taken at face value, clearly indicate that believers are being described. He asks, “How can it be conceivable that such descriptive phrases as enlightenment, experience of the heavenly gift of salvation, full sharing in the Holy Spirit, sharing in the Word of God and the powers of the coming age, do not have believers as their referent?” (353). Considering Allen’s method of argumentation here, it is surprising that he does not also think it inconceivable that the writer could speak of those who “are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace” (v. 6), people who are “worthless” and “in danger of being cursed,” and who in the “end…will be burned” (v. 8) and yet somehow is not talking about their judgment in hell. How can Allen appeal to the clarity of the text when arguing that believers are addressed here and then ignore such clarity when discussing what kind of threat is in view? Interestingly, out of the five major views of this passage, it is only the loss of rewards interpretation that denies that eternal judgment is in view. If the text is to be taken at face value when determining who is being addressed—believers—then it should also be taken at face value when determining what is being threatened—eternal judgment.

It is not just Hebrews 6 that points in this direction, but the other warning passages as well. The writer heightens the severity of his language in Hebrews 10 when he talks about “a fearful expectation of judgment and of a raging fire that will consume the enemies of God” (v. 27) and of a much more severe punishment (v. 29) that awaits those who have “trampled the Son of God under foot,” “treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified,” and “insulted the Spirit of grace” (v. 29). Could such language be legitimately confused with anything other than a description of the eternal hell that awaits those who apostatize?

This, then, turns out to be the real problem with Allen’s view in particular and the loss of rewards view in general: it fails to do justice to the severity of the language used in the warning passages. A straightforward reading of the warning passages, in my judgment, yields the conclusion that believers are being warned, and what they are warned about is the eternal danger that comes if they apostatize.

In saying this, however, I do not give way to the Arminian interpretation of these passages and suggest that a genuine believer can apostatize and be eternally lost. Indeed, as Allen rightly notes, “The key weakness [of the loss of salvation view] from the standpoint of the New Testament is the difficulty of explaining the plethora of passages that affirm the eternal security of the believer” (371). Rather, this leaves us with only one valid interpretive option: the means of salvation view. This is the only view, in my estimation, that takes the warning passages at face value and squares them with the clear New Testament teaching of the perseverance of the saints.

The warning passages in Hebrews—and all the warning passages in the entire Bible for that matter—are the divinely ordained means by which God preserves His elect people and causes them to persevere in faith and holiness. Allen, while giving a thorough presentation of this view (along with the other four major views of these passages), rejects the means of salvation interpretation for several reasons (see 374-376).

First, he objects to this view (and to the three other major views) on the grounds that it interprets the word perapesontas in Hebrews 6:6 as a reference to apostasy. As I have attempted to show above, however, it is clear from the context of not only Hebrews 6 but also all of the warning passages that apostasy was the very thing the writer of Hebrews was warning these believers against. If Allen wants to deny that perapesontas refers to apostasy then he should also deny that the descriptive terms in Heb. 6:4-5 refer to genuine believers.

Second, Allen objects to the means of salvation view because it “appears [to make] final justification await…the completion of a life of perseverance” (374). In response, this objection fails to consider that there seems to be an “already/not yet” paradigm intrinsic to the doctrine of justification by faith in Scripture. Romans 2:6-13 and Galatians 5:5 both point in this direction.

A third problem with the means view, according to Allen, is that it appears to make the warnings of Scripture superfluous. In the words of Jody Dillow, “Is it not ridiculous to say that men can be alarmed by warnings if they have already been consoled by the promise that they are secure? How can they be alarmed about something which could never happen to them?” (376). In other words, if true believers are eternally secure and can never fall away, how can these passages genuinely warn them about the dangers of apostasy?

A couple of things can be said in response to this objection. First, the concept suggested by the means view—that God uses conditional means to bring about certain ends—is consistent with the pattern found elsewhere in Scripture. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 10:12 Paul warns the Corinthians about the dangers of falling and then in the next verse assures them that God’s faithfulness will keep them from falling. There does not seem to be any inconsistency in Paul’s mind between issuing a warning while simultaneously offering an assurance (for other examples of this scriptural precedent, see Thomas Schreiner’s excellent article “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and Proposal, especially pages 55-57).

Second, the reason the warnings in Scripture are effective, even when believers know that their salvation is secure, is because God sovereignly causes true believers to respond rightly to the warnings. That is to say, the warning passages—like Scripture—“work effectively in the hearts of those who believe” (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13). God not only works in the warnings (using them as means) but He also works in believers (causing them to respond to the warnings). So in this sense, the warnings, far from being superfluous, are absolutely essential. No true believer will respond flippantly to the warnings as suggested by Allen. A true believer, while he knows that his salvation is secure, also knows that the warnings must be obeyed in order to be saved. While Allen may not be comfortable with this tension, it corresponds well with the other “tensions” of Scripture (i.e. divine sovereignty and human responsibility, the two natures of Christ, the divine-human character of Scripture, etc.). The means of salvation view is the only interpretation that takes both the warnings and assurances of Scripture at face value. From an exegetical standpoint, then, the means view by far has the most going for it.

Before concluding, let me say that while I disagree with Allen’s handling of the warning passages in Hebrews, I am glad that he does not allow his interpretation to override the Bible’s clear teaching elsewhere (e.g. 1 John 2:19, among others) that true believers will inevitably bear fruit and continue trusting in Christ to the end. Allen favorably quotes D.A. Carson as writing, “genuine faith, by definition, perseveres; where there is no perseverance, by definition the faith cannot be genuine.” He adds, “People who call themselves Christians and yet sin without regret or desire to change show that they have never been genuinely converted” (389).

Overall Allen’s commentary is well researched and detailed in its examination of the book of Hebrews. It has much to offer both the seasoned expositor and the beginning student. Although I do recommend this volume for the perspective it offers and the information it provides, I do not do so without the qualification of the disagreements I outlined in this review.

Review of Darrell Bock's "Recovering the Real Lost Gospel."

This review will soon be over at Credo Magazine's site as well. Look for it there. I have posted a preliminary copy of it here.

Recovering the Real Lost Gospel: Reclaiming the Gospel as Good News. By Darrell Bock. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.

When I first saw Darrell Bock’s Recovering the Real Lost Gospel, I thought that it was going to be a response to the discovery of some new “gospel” that allegedly called into question the four canonical Gospels. Dr. Bock has plenty of experience in this area, having spent a large portion of his academic career defending the biblical account of Jesus and the historical accuracy of the Gospels. His many books and articles on these topics have helpfully counteracted the various attacks and arguments against the truth of biblical Christianity.

After I picked up his newest book, though, what I found was both surprising and refreshing. Instead of defending the historical Gospel accounts from attacks outside of the church, Dr. Bock seeks to recover the Gospel message from distortions within the church. He explains, “This book is written with the conviction that the church has become cloudy on the purpose of the gospel…the goal [of writing this book] is to rediscover the gospel as good news, something that can be lost on the church today” (2).

Listen to an average sermon today and you will hear evangelistic presentations that suggest salvation is simply about obtaining a ticket to heaven, finding forgiveness, or soothing your conscience. Such messages leave sinners thinking that the Gospel is nothing more than an item on a checklist that has no lasting effect on their lives. But the biblical gospel is much more rich and full than these synthetic alternatives.

While it is certainly not less than a message about the forgiveness of sins and the hope of eternal life, the gospel is definitely more than this. In Dr. Bock’s words, “Its central proclamation is the good news of God’s love and initiative not only to save us from hell, but also to bring us into a healthy relationship with Himself. The point of this book is that the gospel is good news, and its core is a restored relationship with God” (1). It is this latter aspect of the gospel that has been lost by the church—the transformative power of the good news. In essence, the gospel not only saves; it transforms.

Although Dr. Bock’s book is brief (consisting of only 133 pages), it is thorough in its coverage of the gospel message. Chapter one traces the development of the gospel from the Old Testament to the New Testament, arguing that at the center of the gospel is a promise of a new community and relationship that is Spirit empowered. Chapter two looks at the gospel from the perspective of both the Lord’s Table and Baptism. The two images that emerge from these rites—a meal and a washing—illustrate what the gospel does for sinners: it washes them spiritually in order that they may have fellowship with God.

The third chapter, entitled “A Unique Action Meeting a Comprehensive Need,” discusses the perfect work of Christ on the cross as the sufficient payment for all sin. The great need that human beings had—salvation from sin—was met by the unique action of the Lord Jesus Christ—His sacrificial death on the cross. Building on this wonderful truth, chapters four and five reveal how the work of Christ is applied to human beings. Because Jesus Christ paid the debt of sin in full, nothing remains for sinful people to pay for. Salvation, then, is a gift of God’s grace that is given, not earned; received, not worked for. The amazing thing about this great work of redemption is that God Himself accomplished it, in the person of His Son. The deity of Jesus Christ is clearly on display in the gospel, and it is an essential component of the message of salvation.

Chapters six and seven cover the response to the gospel message and the results that follow this, respectively. The gospel calls people to repent and turn from their sin and embrace the Lord Jesus Christ in faith. Those who truly trust in the person and work of Christ are indwelled by the Holy Spirit and enabled to live a life pleasing to God. In Dr. Bock’s words, the gospel gives reconciliation and peace—it restores the relationship between sinful human beings and holy God—and it grants a new kind of power that transforms sinners into saints.

I could say a lot in appreciation of Recovering the Real Lost Gospel. In keeping with the brevity of the book, however, let me make just a few brief comments. First, Dr. Bock helpfully connects the gospel to the greater story line of Scripture. His book is really a biblical theology of the gospel. It rightly demonstrates that in order to fully understand the gospel we cannot simply study New Testament texts that talk about it; rather, we must also follow the progression of the gospel message from Genesis on through the entire Old Testament. The covenants of Scripture—the Abrahamic, the Davidic, and the New—all testify and point to the gospel that would be more fully revealed in the New Testament.

Secondly, Dr. Bock does a good job setting the gospel message in its first century context. Several times throughout the book he referred to an ancient practice or custom that shed significant light on a verse (see pages 12-14 for a good example). Moreover, his section on the deity of Christ (chapter five) provides good background information on Jewish theology at the time of Christ and also confirms the accuracy and historicity of the Gospel accounts.

Finally, in my estimation, Dr. Bock accomplishes his goal of “reclaiming the gospel as good news.” His holistic approach to the biblical gospel is a welcome antidote to the assorted reductionistic gospel messages offered in its place. Recovering the Real Lost Gospel is a profitable read, one which should find a place on every Christian’s bookshelf.

Review of John MacArthur's "Slave"

Slave: The Hidden Truth about Your Identity in Christ. By John MacArthur. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010.

John MacArthur has devoted his life to defending the Gospel. For over forty years this devotion has fueled his preaching, teaching, and writing. His many books on the Gospel have roundly refuted the errors associated with no-lordship salvation, easy believism, and pragmatism. Dr. MacArthur’s most recent book, Slave, stands in the same tradition as his previous works and is characterized by the same biblical fidelity, clarity, and precision that marked his earlier books.

MacArthur sums up the essential message of Slave when he writes, “True Christianity is not about adding Jesus to my life. Instead, it is about devoting myself completely to Him—submitting wholly to His will and seeking to please Him above all else. It demands dying to self and following the Master, no matter the cost. In other words, to be a Christian is to be Christ’s slave” (22).

While this message may not be popular today, it is thoroughly biblical. Unfortunately, however, due to a widespread mistranslation of the term slave in English translations over the past couple of centuries, the full implications of this concept have been lost to many Christians. Dr. MacArthur points out, “…the Greek word for slave has been covered up by being mistranslated in almost every English version—going back to both the King James Version and the Geneva Bible that predated it” (15). He adds, “Instead of translating doulos as ‘slave,’ these translations consistently substitute the word servant in its place. Ironically, the Greek language has at least half a dozen words that can mean servant. The word doulos is not one of them” (16).

Why, then, do so many English translations mistranslate this term? MacArthur suggests at least two reasons. First, because of the history of slavery in the West—particularly the brutality and racism that are associated with the concept—the word “slave” has become somewhat taboo in the English speaking world. Secondly, most translators use the word “servant” in place of “slave” because of the precedent set by the Latin translation. “But whatever the rationale behind the change,” MacArthur notes, “something significant is lost in translation when doulos is rendered ‘servant’ rather than ‘slave’” (19). It is this significant loss that MacArthur seeks to recover in the rest of his book.

I want to spend some time looking at two of the more “significant” insights that Dr. MacArthur discovers as a result of his study of the word slave. Although he does a masterful job analyzing the linguistical, historical, and cultural aspects of doulos, where he is the most helpful, I believe, is in detailing the practical ramifications that this one small word—slave—has for each and every Christian.

The first significant issue Dr. MacArthur takes up in this book is the effect that the concept of slavery has on the Gospel. The slave metaphor is used throughout the NT to describe the believer’s relationship to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Master; believers are His slaves. This means, “The gospel is not simply an invitation to become Christ’s associate; it is a mandate to become His slave” (19). In typical fashion, MacArthur challenges all forms of superficial Christianity that proclaim an unbiblical Gospel message. In particular, he issues a devastating blow to those who “attack the lordship of Christ over His church” (73). What he started in The Gospel According to Jesus he now finishes in Slave, putting the last nail in the coffin on any form of no-lordship salvation.

Dr. MacArthur’s case against no-lordship salvation is significantly strengthened by his discussion of the connection between the words kurios (“lord”) and doulos (“slave”). He explains, “Kyrios and doulos are two sides of the same relationship. To be slave [in the ancient world] was to have a master. And vice versa, a kyrios by definition was the owner of slaves. Thus, to confess Jesus as ‘Lord’ is to simultaneously confess Him as Master and ourselves as His slaves” (77). Furthermore, throughout the NT Jesus is called the “head” (kephale) of the Church (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:19). This term unmistakably refers to Jesus’ exalted position as the “authority” of His people. Taken together, these insights clearly show that when the Bible calls upon sinners to “believe in the Lord Jesus [to] be saved” (Acts 16:31), it is calling upon them to humbly submit to the absolute and sovereign Master, Jesus Christ. Surely any Gospel message that fails to present the full implications of Christ’s lordship must be considered less than faithful.

A second significant gain that is made from studying the word slave is the perspective it offers on the doctrines of sovereign grace. In chapters seven to ten, Dr. MacArthur skillfully offers a fresh look at the five points of Calvinism using the slave metaphor. The doctrine of total depravity is defined as teaching that unbelievers are slaves of sin, utterly unwilling and unable to rid themselves of sin’s tyranny unless rescued by God. The doctrine of unconditional election teaches that God mercifully and graciously determined to rescue specific enslaved sinners whom He had fore-loved from eternity past. The doctrine of particular redemption teaches that God in Christ came to redeem—to buy back—His elect people from the slave market of sin by paying for their sin on the cross. This purchase was applied to God’s elect by the Holy Spirit who irresistibly called and regenerated them by grace. Once awakened by divine grace, elect sinners believed in Jesus Christ and “became slaves of righteousness” (Rom. 6:18), “having been freed from sin and enslaved to God” (v. 22). As slaves of Christ, believers persevere in faith and holiness because God preserves them by His grace. What a beautiful and unique picture of salvation. We are not only saved by grace; we are slaved by it as well.

The material presented in Slave represents John MacArthur at his best. Having followed his ministry for quite some time now, it is evident to me that as he gets older his teaching keeps getting better and better. Slave is full of insights, solid research, and memorable illustrations from church history. This is an excellent book that should be read by all Christians. Without any qualms, I highly recommend this book.

Review of Robert Coleman's "The Heart of the Gospel"

I have the opportunity to review Robert Coleman's new book The Heart of the Gospel: The Theology Behind the Master Plan of Evangelism for Credo Blog later this month. I have decided to put the preliminary review of it here in the mean time. Hope you enjoy!

The Heart of the Gospel: The Theology Behind the Master Plan of Evangelism. By Robert E. Coleman. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011.

I first read Robert Coleman’s The Master Plan of Evangelism my senior year in college. I can still remember how impacted I was by that little book. The insight Coleman gave into Jesus’ command to “make disciples” (Matt 28:19) was revolutionizing to my understanding of evangelism. After reading that book for the first time, I can remember thinking, “If only this book were longer!” You can imagine how excited I was, then, to learn that Coleman was going to be publishing a follow up to his bestseller that traces the theology behind the book.

The Heart of the Gospel reads like a scaled-down systematic theology that shows how the Gospel is the warp and woof of all evangelical theological study. Coleman says, “Cut through evangelical theology anywhere, I believe, and it will bleed the Gospel” (10). As he moves through the various aspects of systematic theology—theology proper, bibliology, eschatology, to name just a few—Coleman connects each doctrine to the Gospel and shows how it affects the pursuit of evangelism.

There are many strong points in this book and very few weaknesses. I could easily list several things I liked, but for the sake of space let me confine my comments to just three aspects. First, Dr. Coleman models how to interact with differing viewpoints in a way that is loving and honest. Secondly, he has a unique ability to connect each and every doctrine of Scripture to the Gospel and show how it applies to evangelism. Thirdly, Coleman is passionate about the biblical Gospel and seeks to be as accurate in his understanding of it as possible. I will expand upon each of these points in what follows.

Despite Dr. Coleman’s Wesleyan/Arminian approach to this subject, what he brings to the table is profitable for Christians of all theological persuasions. His coverage of the doctrines of systematic theology are thorough but to the point. When he discusses the various ways theological doctrines have been understood throughout church history, Coleman is always fair and accurate in his presentation. For example, in his chapter on the death of Christ, Coleman briefly mentions the debate between Calvinists and Arminians regarding whether Jesus died for all people without exception (Unlimited Atonement) or whether His death was specifically intended only for the elect (Limited Atonement). Although he makes it clear that he sides with the former position, he nevertheless graciously points out areas of agreement between the two sides and accurately notes that neither position—when properly understood—negatively affects one’s understanding of evangelism. He explains, “Whether Arminian or Reformed, the Gospel must be received by faith for the atonement of Christ to be efficacious…So in either system of thought, the Gospel is freely offered to every person, and whosoever will may come to Christ. Only those who respond to the invitation will be saved, and in that response their election is known, whether Arminian or Calvinist. Without evangelism neither system of theology has any practical value” (109).

As one who holds to Limited Atonement, I find it extremely helpful that Coleman has the honesty to admit that biblical Calvinism in no way undermines evangelism. Especially in a day when so many false statements about Calvinism are made, Coleman seeks to promote unity and charity by accurately describing a viewpoint he disagrees with. I pray that Coleman’s method of theological engagement will be practiced by all of God’s people.

A second area that Coleman excels at is in his unique ability to see all of systematic theology with Gospel colored lenses. I was amazed at the ways in which he connected all of the doctrines of Scripture to evangelism. Even doctrines like angelogy and eschatology are placed in the context of the Gospel. One example that stands out is Coleman’s discussion of the Church’s observance of the sacraments—Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

After outlining the various interpretations of these sacred ordinances that have been proposed throughout church history, Coleman gets very practical: “While the sacraments are intended for believers, the performance of them offers real opportunities for evangelism. Preparing people for baptism presents a natural occasion to explain the Gospel…At the time of the baptism, after the candidates give their testimony, the officiating minister can also invite any other person to come to Jesus. Probably the greatest opening for presenting the claims of Christ comes at the Lord’s Supper. When its meaning is clarified by the celebrant, the invitation is extended” (218).

Many similar statements could be cited. Coleman clearly is a man dedicated to obeying the Great Commission. He sees all of life—including the study of theology—under the guise of evangelism. What an example he is to all who read this book to live Gospel-centered.

What I appreciated most about Coleman’s book was its unwavering commitment to proclaiming an accurate Gospel. Clearly aware of the superficial and shallow evangelistic strategies all around him, Coleman seeks to recover the fullness of the message of salvation. While he does give detailed attention to each aspect of the Gospel, I want to highlight Dr. Coleman’s presentation of both the demands and results of the Gospel message. It is here, in my opinion, that The Heart of the Gospel is most helpful.

Three specific elements caught my eye in this section of Coleman’s book, each of which is often misconstrued by evangelists and teachers. The first step in inviting people to salvation is the bold proclamation of the Lordship of Christ. Dr. Coleman rightly says, “Bowing before God is the first requirement for salvation...Recognizing God’s rightful claim on our lives, thus, becomes our initial step toward redemption” (25). He later clarifies, “Since Christ is not divided, to receive him as Savior is to surrender to him as Lord. I see no biblical reason to separate the two, as if we could have one part of Jesus without the other” (284, note 17).

A second component of the biblical Gospel that must be stressed is the necessity of repentance. Coleman refuses to minimize this important term by reducing its meaning to a casual change of mind that leaves one’s life unaffected. Rather, repentance, at its core, implies a radical change of life. He correctly says, “…true repentance results in a lasting change. Persons who have started to follow Christ do not want to look back. Elements of the initial act of repentance—conviction, brokenness, confession, and restitution—characterize this ongoing state of penitence” (158).

When discussing the response of faith, Coleman does not simply allow a lexicon to shape his understanding of this term but turns to the biblical text itself for guidance. He first points out that faith, in its essence, is trust in the person and work of Christ. In his words, “Faith looks to Jesus Christ alone for salvation—he is the object of faith that saves…It rests on the conviction, full of joyful trust, that Jesus is the Messiah, the divinely appointed Author of eternal salvation in the kingdom of God, affirming the historic events of his life, death, and resurrection. Jesus has done it all. We contribute nothing to our salvation. Even our faith is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9)” (161-2).

But he does not stop here. Coleman accurately notes that the Bible also teaches that faith is by its nature a persevering faith that always and inevitably leads to good works. Here is how he puts it: “Living what we believe will be manifest in our deeds. The call of Christ is to follow him, which means to keep going wherever he leads and to do whatever he asks. Once committed, an obedient disciple has no desire to turn back (e.g., Luke 9:62). It is faith all the way, ‘from faith to faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith’ (Rom. 1:17; cf. Heb. 4:2)” (167). Coleman does not make distinctions where the Bible does not. True faith inevitably results in true discipleship; indeed, the call to faith is the call to discipleship.

Much more could be said in praise of Coleman’s work. Theologically, he rightly notes that justification inevitably and inseparably leads to sanctification (178, 286 note 11), the doctrines of assurance and eternal security should not be overemphasized so as to exclude the necessity of perseverance (197-210), and the purpose and end of all evangelism is ultimately to give glory to God (266-7). Practically, Coleman’s book is packed with illustrations, quotes, and stories that clarify, encourage, and ignite passion for evangelism.

Although I could spend some time responding to the Wesleyan/Arminian perspective advocated in this book, the subtle and gentle nature of Coleman’s approach makes such a response unnecessary. Besides, as I noted above, the strengths of this book far outweigh the weaknesses. Such being the case, I am happy to recommend this book and pray that it has a great impact upon the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

New Theological Magazine

My friend Dr. Matthew Barrett has launched a new theological publication called Credo Magazine. This will be an online magazine similar to Tabletalk (of Ligonier Ministries) but will be from a distinctly Reformed Baptist viewpoint. The magazine will feature articles by respected theologians and biblical scholars such as Michael A.G. Haykin, Gregg Allison, Bruce Ware, and others. I have been asked to assist with editing the book reviews and I am honored and privileged to be a part of such a God glorifying project. See the website at http://www.credomag.com/.

Reading Projects

It has been a while since I last posted. My semester at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary turned out to be a lot busier than I thought it was going to and I have also been busy catching up on some reading projects. In line with my last couple of posts on free grace theology, I have been reading through quite a bit of the free grace literature as of late. On top of reading through Jody Dillow's The Reign of Servant Kings, I recently finished Charles Bing's doctoral dissertation (turned book) entitled Lordship Salvation: An Evaluation and Response, Fred Chay's The Faith That Saves: The Nature of Faith in the New Testament and also finished Dave Anderson's Free Grace Soteriology.

I did enjoy each of these books and it has been fun working through each book's argument and thesis. I am planning on tackling a few other free grace books in the near future (one by R.T. Kendall and another by Fred Lybrand). Lord willing I will be able to post my responses to these books and point to good reviews of them in the near future (I do know that one review of Fred Chay's book is in the works).

Please stay posted for more thoughts on free grace theology and other theological issues.

Discipleship: The Mark of True Believers

Is every Christian a disciple? This one question perhaps more than any other gets right to the heart of the debate between Lordship salvation and free grace theology. While Lordship salvation holds that the life of discipleship is the inevitable result of placing one’s faith in Jesus (thus maintaining that all Christians are disciples), free grace theology insists that discipleship is not the inevitable consequence of belief (thus implying that it is possible to be a genuine Christian and not a follower of Jesus). Representing the FG perspective, Zane Hodges says, “It is an interpretive mistake of the first magnitude to confuse the terms of discipleship with the offer of eternal life…” (The Gospel Under Siege, 41). At first glance, Hodges’s statement may seem to have some merit. After all, according to FG theology, does not the Bible indicate that the call to faith is free of any obligations or demands and the call to discipleship is of the essence of commitment? A careful study of the New Testament, however, yields precisely the opposite conclusion.

As we have seen, true biblical faith is not simply a mental exercise, but is at its core a firm reliance upon and commitment to Jesus Christ as the Lord (read: Master) and Savior. As such, faith is more akin to discipleship than free grace teachers admit. Furthermore, since repentance is a requirement of being saved (and because it consists of a radical forsaking of sin) then the life of a Christian is very much the life of a disciple. Discipleship actually turns out to be the perfect metaphor of faith, as Dr. Thomas Schreiner and Ardel Caneday point out in their book The Race Set Before Us. Four lines of evidence confirm that discipleship defines what it means to believe: first, in the Gospels Jesus’s call to discipleship is a call to trust in Him for salvation. Secondly, the terms “believers” and “disciples” are used interchangeably in the book of Acts. Thirdly, the descriptions of a disciple in the Gospels are similar to the descriptions of a believer in the Epistles. Lastly, Jesus clearly teaches that discipleship is the evidence of a believer’s faith. Each one of these points will be expanded upon in the following paragraphs.

The Call to Follow Jesus: An Invitation to Believe in Him

In the Gospels Christ’s call to discipleship is also an invitation to salvation. Put another way, when Christ called people to follow Him in discipleship, He was inviting them to be saved. This becomes most apparent when it is considered that often times Jesus taught about discipleship when unbelievers were present. Luke 14:25 for instance says, “Now large crowds were going along with him; and he turned and said to them…” What follows is His detailing the requirements of discipleship. What stands out from this is twofold: first, it would be unthinkable to suppose that people could genuinely follow Jesus without also believing in Him. It makes more sense to see discipleship entailing belief. Secondly, since Jesus delivers such a message to a crowd where unbelievers were present, it is only logical to assume that He was calling such unbelievers to follow Him and thus also inviting them to believe in Him.

In the discipleship passages, Jesus also uses terms that elsewhere in Scripture are associated with salvation. For instance, in Luke 14:26 Jesus begins His teaching on discipleship by using the common words, “If anyone comes to Me….” (emphasis added). These same words are used in the Gospel of John to describe the act of believing. In John 6:35 Jesus says, “He who comes to Me will never hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.” Clearly in this verse to “come to Jesus” is to “believe” in Him. Thus when Jesus uses this same phrase at the outset of His teaching on discipleship, He intends for the two concepts to be associated: to come to Jesus in discipleship is also to come to Him in faith.

Furthermore, the results of discipleship are also the results of salvation: eternal life. In Matthew 16:25 Jesus said, “whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.” In case there is any confusion about what is meant by Jesus’s use of the term “life,” a parallel account in John says, “The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (12:25; emphasis added).

“Disciples” and “Believers”: Synonymous Terms

Since the call to discipleship is simultaneously a call to trust Christ for salvation, it is no surprise that the terms “Christians,” and “disciples” are used interchangeably in the book of Acts. John MacArthur, in his classic book The Gospel According to Jesus, explains, “The word disciple is used consistently as a synonym for believer throughout the book of Acts (6:1, 2, 7; 11:26; 14:20, 22; 15:10). Any distinction between the words is purely artificial…” (221). Indeed, Luke records that “the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch” (Acts 11:26). Apparently there was no distinction between a Christian and a disciple in the early church—every Christian was a disciple. On top of this, Millard J. Erickson, in his Christian Theology, says that the “...distinction between salvation and discipleship…is difficult to sustain, as for instance, in the Great Commission, in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands his disciples to ‘go and make disciples’” (950). Since the Bible does not make any distinction between the terms “believer” and “disciple,” we should not either.

The descriptions of disciples in the Gospels are similar to the descriptions of believers in the rest of the New Testament

What does a believer in Jesus Christ look like? The New Testament answers this question in various ways. In previous studies we have seen that the Bible speaks of believers as those who trust Christ (John 1:12-13), those who love Jesus (John 14:23), those who obey the Lord (John 3:36; Heb. 5:9), and those who repent of their sin (Rom. 2:4; 1 Thess. 1:9-10).

We get more insight into what a true believer looks like when we turn to the Gospel writer’s portrayals of disciples. Interestingly, the descriptions of disciples in the Gospels are similar to the descriptions of believers in the Epistles. For instance, Jesus says that disciples are those who “…deny themselves and take up their cross…” (Matt. 16:24; Lk. 9:23). These words sound remarkably similar to the Apostle Paul’s description of believers as those who “have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:24). What is true of disciples in this case is true of Christians: both are characterized by self-denial. Dr. Darrell Bock, New Testament professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, agrees:

“The essence of saving trust in God is self-denial, a recognition that he must save because disciples cannot save themselves, that life must be given over into God’s care and protection. Disciples do not respond to their own personal wills, but to God’s…For Paul, when a person in faith asks God to save through Jesus, the petitioner recognizes that Jesus must save from sin and that he imparts life, because the petitioner’s life needs redeeming on God’s terms. Salvation does not come on one’s terms or on one’s own merits (Rom. 3-5). Jesus calls this self-denial. Paul’s words are no different than Jesus’, just less pictorial. Salvation is a gift that God bestows to the one who knows the need for it, who knows one cannot provide it for oneself” (Luke 1:1-9:50, 852).

In other words, the believer-disciple says along with Paul, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). The reason why disciples and believers are described in similar terms is because in reality they are one and the same.

Discipleship: The Mark of a True Believer

Perhaps the clearest indication that every believer is a disciple of Christ comes from Jesus’s own words in John 10:26-27: “You do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” There are a couple of things to notice about this text. First, notice that Jesus clearly indicates that His “sheep” are those who “believe.” So there is no question here who He is talking about. Jesus is talking about believers. Secondly, Jesus tells us three characteristics of true believers: they “hear” Him, they are known by Jesus, and they follow Christ. The last of these characteristics—the fact that Christ’s sheep “follow” Him—is most pertinent to our discussion. Nathan Busentiz comments,

“The word used here for ‘follow’ is akoloutheo. Whenever it is used in a religious context in the New Testament, it refers to discipleship. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says this about the term:

The distinctive statistical evidence shows that the special [meaning religious] use of akolouthein is strictly limited to discipleship of Christ; apart from a single reference in Revelation it is found exclusively in the four Gospels. … The disciple leaves everything to go after Jesus (Mk. 10:28; cf. 1:18; Lk. 5:11). This implies, however, that akolouthein signifies self-commitment in a sense which breaks all other ties (Mt. 8:22; Lk. 9:61 f.). … The exclusiveness of the NT use arises from the fact that for primitive Christianity there is only one discipleship and therefore only one following, namely, the relationship to Jesus. The demand akolouthei moi in Mk. 2:14 and par. is a Messianic demand (–> sunakoloutheo). Because it signifies following the Messiah, this discipleship is essentially a religious gift. Akoulouthein means participation in the salvation offered in Jesus. (Gerhard Kittel, TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 213–14; Greek terms transliterated).

So Jesus’ Himself uses a term for discipleship to refer to the characteristics of His sheep (true believers).

Those who have true faith (and thus are part of His flock) will follow their shepherd in obedience (See the rest of his thoughts here).

In light of this, one wonders how free grace teachers can honestly conclude that it is possible for someone to be a believer in Jesus and yet not follow Him in discipleship. Jesus, in John 10:26-27, could not have made Himself any clearer: a true believer will always “follow” Him.

Conclusion

We have seen in this brief study that there are at least four reasons to maintain that every believer is a disciple: one, because Jesus’s call to follow Him was a call to believe in Him; two, because the terms “disciple” and “believer” are synonymous; thirdly, because the Bible describes believers and disciples in the same terms; and, lastly, because discipleship is the mark of true believers. For all of these reasons (plus the reasons given in previous posts) it seems best to reject both the free grace concept of discipleship and salvation.