Corrupting Gospel Repentance: the FBFI and Minci's Response

In response to Pastor Brandenburg's article here, John Mincy engaged in an interview where he gave a weak response, available here.

The response begins by stating:  "A blogger [Pastor Brandenburg] has since picked up on it with an article demonstrating a poor understanding of Dr. Mincy’s point."  I assume that he is referring to Pastor Brandenburg's critique of the original Mincy article, but since the statement is a vague one to "a blogger," perhaps some different blogger is referred to, one that does not show up on Google anywhere and which gives no evidence of his existence, since as far as I can determine, Pastor Brandenburg is the only author who critiqued Mincy's original post.  I will go on the assumption that the unnamed "blogger" who allegedly was "demonstrating poor understanding" is a reference to Pastor Brandenburg.

In the Mincy response, not a single instance of "poor understanding" was proven.  Not even one.  Making such an affirmation is easier than dealing with the content of Pastor Brandenburg’s critique.

In the first section of Mincy's interview, Mincy says that his "article is no denial of the need for personal repentance."  Great.  But what is repentance?  Zane Hodges could say the same thing Mincy does.  Just about any antinomian could make such a statement too.  Sadly, everything Mincy says about "justification repentance" could also be said by Zane Hodges. 

Mincy declares that he does not like the phrase:  “‘You must repent of your sins in order to be saved.’  Such a statement raises questions: how many of my sins, what if I forget some, what if I commit that sin again, and so on.”  He engages in zero exegesis of Scripture to show that his dislike of the fact that the lost must repent of their sins is Biblical.  Instead he just creates doubt with questions.  Sadly, that is the best one can do if one does not like an essential element of the gospel, namely, that one must repent of his sins.  Presumably his dislike of repentance for sins applies only to what he terms "justification repentance."  But could we not ask the same questions of his "sanctification repentance"?  "I don't like the phrase you must repent of your sins as a Christian to be right with God.  Such a statement raises questions:  how many of my sins, what if I forget some, what if I commit that sin again, and so on."  There.  I have now proven that neither the unconverted nor the Christian must repent of his sins--all without citing a single verse from the Bible.

The answer to Mincy's “how many” question is “the wicked turn from all his sins which he hath committed” (Eze 18:21).  That does not mean that one has to name them one by one down the list of one’s entire unconverted life.  Nobody believes that.  Are there significant bodies of Baptists who teach that if a lost person forgets to name a specific one of his sins, he isn’t saved?  Can Mincy give a single example of anyone who has said this?  Does he give any examples of this as a widespread teaching?  No.  What about “what if I commit that sin again?”  The answer is that the dominion of sin is shattered in the Christian so that Romans 6:14 is a blessed promise:  “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.”  The old man is crucified with Christ, and that always makes a difference (Romans 6), although indwelling sin still remains, so that there is a struggle.  Does Mincy really not know this?  Why is he raising these questions, and using them to undermine the essential Biblical fact that the lost must repent of their sins?

Mincy also affirms that there is a "difference between sin and sins which in my view is crucial in understanding the difference between justification and sanctification repentance."  "Justification repentance" apparently does not involve turning away from sins, while "sanctification repentance" apparently does.  However, Scripture does not anywhere establish this allegedly "crucial" distinction.  It may be a crucial distinction to Mincy, and it may be one made by people with confused views of the gospel associated with Dallas Seminary, such as Chafer, and Wiersbe, whom he cites in his two discussions, or Ryrie and Hodges, who share his opposition to the lost turning from their sins, but it is not one found in the Bible.  Consider Matthew 12:41 (the material below is from my larger study Repentance Defended Against Antinomian Heresy—A Brief Defense of the Indubitable Biblical Fact that Repentance is a Change of Mind that Always Results in a Change of Action):

The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Christ refers to what took place in Jonah 3:5-10:

So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

When the Lord Jesus spoke of repentance for the lost, he spoke of the kind of change of mind or heart of the kind that took place at Nineveh, when the Ninevites “believed God . . . and . . . turn[ed] every one from his evil way,” where “their works” were evidence that they had “turned.”

Consider also Luke 15:7, 10. Christ said "unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. . . . Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.”

In the single parable (Luke 15:3) of Luke 15, Christ illustrates the conversion of publicans and sinners (15:1-2) by the restoration of a lost sheep, coin, and son, while the unconverted and self-righteous Pharisees who thought they did not need to repent (Luke 15:2; cf. 5:31-32; 19:7-10) are illustrated by another son (cf. Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1; Romans 9:4) who was not willing to enter his father’s house but greatly dishonored his father because of his perceived superiority to the restored lost son (15:25-32).  When Christ spoke of repentance, he spoke of the attitude expressed by the words of the son that was lost but then found:  “I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants” (Luke 15:18-19).  This is the repentance of the unconverted sinner.

Consider what the Apostles preached in Acts:

Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

When the Apostles preached repentance, they preached that repentance results in “works meet for repentance.”  They also connected repentance with turning or being converted;  cf. Acts 3:19, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.”  To turn or be converted is to “change direction, turn around . . . to change belief or course of conduct . . . to change one’s mind or course of action . . . turn, return.” [Epistrepho, in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature (3rd ed.), W. Arndt, F. Danker, & W. Bauer. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000.]  Paul explains what takes place when men repent, are converted, and are born again:  “For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10).  Conversion is to turn to God and to turn away from idolatry and other sins.  It is to turn to God from sin with the purpose of serving the living and true God and waiting for the return of His Son.

The idea that only in an alleged “sanctification repentance” limited to the saved do people turn from sins is false.  The repentance of the unconverted and of the converted involve turning from sins and evil deeds.  Mincy, in his original article, argues that Revelation 2:5 refers to the “sanctification repentance” of the believer when it states: “Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.”  Here one who has repented will “do . . . works” as a result.  But what of the lost?  In Revelation 2:21-22, employing the same Greek word and appearing later in the same chapter, Christ commanded that the lost “repent of [their] fornication” (Revelation 2:21) and warned that those who do not “repent of their deeds” would enter “into great tribulation” (Revelation 2:22).  That is, those unsaved people who do not “repent of their deeds” will miss the Rapture and enter into the “great tribulation” (Revelation 7:14; Matthew 24:21) with the rest of the unsaved, those who “repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts” (Revelation 9:20-21), those who “blasphemed the name of God . . . and . . . repented not to give him glory. . . . blasphemed the God of heaven . . . and repented not of their deeds” (Revelation 16:9, 11).  There is not the slightest hint of a distinction between a “justification repentance” which does not involve turning from one’s sins and a “sanctification repentance” which does.  The Apostle John taught, through the inspiration of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, taught the doctrine of repentance in every standard Baptist confession, the doctrine of repentance weakened and attacked by Mincy, namely:

Unfeigned repentance is an inward and true sorrow of heart for sin, with sincere confession of the same to God, especially that we have offended so gracious a God and so loving a Father, together with a settled purpose of heart and a careful endeavor to leave all our sins, and to live a more holy and sanctified life according to all God’s commands” (The Orthodox Creed, Baptist, 1679). 

“This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, doth, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency; praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavor by supplies of the Spirit to walk before God unto all well-pleasing in all things” (Philadelphia Confession of Faith, Baptist, 1742). 

“Repentance is an evangelical grace, wherein a person being, by the Holy Spirit, made sensible of the manifold evil of his sin, humbleth himself for it, with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrence, with a purpose and endeavor to walk before God so as to please Him in all things” (Abstract of Principles, Southern Baptist Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, 1859).

The view that is Mincy is advocating is not Biblical.  It is also not Baptist.  It is absent from all Baptist confessions of faith.  Yet both the true gospel, which involves the lost repenting of their sin and receiving Christ as Lord and Savior, and the confused gospel proclaimed by Mincy and others in the FBFI, are apparently acceptable in that organization, demonstrating that the FBFI is not truly Baptist, nor truly fellowship, and not something Biblical Baptists ought to be a part of.  Countless multitudes are already weeping and wailing in hell because they accepted the downgraded perversion of the gospel being advocated by Mincy, Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie (in a less extreme way than Hodges), Jack Hyles, and so on.  Yet, so it seems, it is not an issue that will break the “fellowship” in the FBFI.  My sincere hope is that Dr. Mincy’s actual belief is better than what his articles have taught, and better than the corruptions of Hyles, Hodges, and so on, and that he will repent of his false teaching in these articles and return to the Biblical and historic Baptist gospel.  Paul did not allow Peter to corrupt the gospel for even one hour (Galatians 2).  Neither must Mincy's corruption of repentance be tolerated in Baptist churches, no, not for an hour.

TDR

The Keswick Christ-life-other alleged Scriptural support: part 4 of 4 in Does Christ live the Christian Life for the Christian? The Keswick View of Galatians 2:20 Examined

            A few other passages can be employed to attempt to support the doctrine that the Lord Jesus Christ lives the Christian life instead of the believer.  However, no text in Scripture actually affirms such a proposition.  2 Corinthians 4:10-11 refers to “the life . . . of Jesus.”  However, the reference is to spiritual life produced by and sourced in the Lord Jesus, not to the Lord Jesus Himself personally living the Christian life instead of the Christian.  Paul speaks of the spiritual life produced by the Lord Jesus in him in connection with the renewing of his inner man (2 Corinthians 4:16)[1] and associated with the physical suffering and persecution through which he was troubled, distressed, and persecuted (4:8-9), was being always delivered to death (4:11), had his outward man perishing because of affliction (4:16-17), and thus bore in his body “the dying of the Lord Jesus” (4:10).[2]  The believer’s spiritual life is unquestionably produced, sustained, and increased by Jesus Christ.  The Lord Jesus, and the entire Godhead, alone receive the glory for all the believer’s spiritual life and growth, as the Author and Sustainer of all; “the excellency of the power [is] of God, and not of us” (2 Corinthians 4:7).  This fact is weighty and wondrous truth.  It differs, however, from the unscriptural affirmation that the Lord Jesus Christ actually lives the Christian life instead of the Christian living the Christian life.

            Colossians 3:4 speaks of “Christ, who is our life.”  Again, the passage makes no reference whatsoever to Christ living the Christian life instead of the Christian living the Christian life.  The verse indicates that all believers, not a minority only that have found a secret Higher Life, but all who will “appear with Him in glory” (3:4),[3] are in union with and identified with Christ, have their lives hid with Christ in God (3:1-3), and will consequently be with Him when He returns to bring in the Kingdom.  The Lord Jesus is the One who guarantees them eternal life, and is the Author of all spiritual life and blessings to them, and, indeed, the One who gives them all blessings and good things of every kind whatsoever.  However, Colossians 3:4 does not teach that Jesus Christ lives the Christian life instead of the believer, much less that Christ lives the Christian life for an elite minority of believers that have discovered a Higher Life. 

Parallel passages illustrate the sort of eisegesis required to make Colossians 3:4 teach the doctrine that Christ lives the Christian life while the Christian does not.  Deuteronomy 30:20 states:   “The LORD thy God . . . is thy life, and the length of thy days, that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers.”  Does this passage affirm that the Lord lived the Jewish life instead of the children of Israel, and that He also lived out the length of their days in Canaan instead of them (whatever that could possibly mean)?  Or does the passage rather teach the obvious truth that God was the One who gave the children of Israel life and length of days?  Deuteronomy 32:46-47 commands:  “Set your hearts unto all the words which I [Moses] testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law. For it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life: and through this thing ye shall prolong your days in the land.”  Does this passage mean that the children of Israel did not live the Jewish life, but the law lived the Jewish life instead of them, because the text says “this law . . . is your life”?  Does it prove that the Jew cannot and must not live the Jewish life, but only the Pentateuch can live the Jewish life?  Or does the text, rather, obviously mean that obedience to the Law of God would lead Israel to live a long time in the land of Canaan?  What exegesis fits the obvious meaning of texts such as Psalm 27:1 (“The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?”) and Psalm 42:8 (“Yet the LORD will command his lovingkindness in the daytime, and in the night his song shall be with me, and my prayer unto the God of my life.”)?  The ideas read into—not out of—Colossians 3:4 about Christ living the Christian life are impossible in other Biblical texts that contain similar phraseology.

It is an inexpressibly glorious truth that Christ, as God, possesses self-existent life, and that He as the God-Man[4] is the fountain and source of the believer’s derived eternal spiritual life.[5] Life supplied by Christ and in union with Him (Colossians 3:1-4) is the basis for the mortification of indwelling sin (Colossians 3:5).  It is certainly true that the Lord Jesus is the Author, Preserver, Upholder, and Finisher of the Christian’s spiritual life.  Such life is communicated to the believer by Christ, with whom the saint has come into an intimate mystical union.  Furthermore, the believer must trust in and obey Christ if he wishes to grow in grace.  However, it is false and dangerous to pure doctrine and a holy life to teach that Christ lives the Christian life instead of the believer.  Benjamin B. Warfield correctly wrote: 

[T]he believer . . . is made alive in Christ—and it is he that is made alive. It is not only that he has Christ in him and Christ is living, but it is he himself that is living, for Christ has made him alive:  yes, he has life in himself (John 6:53). It is not true that [t]he believer is portrayed as a man in himself spiritually dead, indwelt through the Spirit by Jesus Christ, who is his spiritual life[.] [Rather, he] is portrayed as a man who is spiritually alive, in whom Jesus Christ the source of all his life, dwells by His Spirit. The man himself is saved, and his new holiness is his holiness. It is a grave error to suppose that the living Christ can dwell within us without imparting life to us. He quickens whom He will: and he whom He quickens, lives.”[6]

Biblical and historic Baptist truth recognizes the glorious fact of union with Christ and the need to seek strength from Him by faith.  The Christian grows in personal holiness as he is quickened by that Divine-human Savior with whom he has been united.  Such truth must not be corrupted by unscriptural additions or subtractions, such as the idea that the believer does not personally become holy as he lives for God, but that Christ Himself actually lives the Christian life instead of the believer.[7]

See here for this entire study.

TDR

---

[1]              Similarly, the “life of God” (Ephesians 4:18) for the believer is freedom from the sins of the unregenerate (4:16-18), putting off the old man and putting on the new man, having God renew the spirit of his mind, living a holy and righteous life, telling the truth and having holy speech instead of lying and having ungodly speech, and so on (4:20ff.).  The believer does not have the personal life of the eternal Trinity living the Christian life instead of him.

[2]              Note that one who wished to make “the life . . . of Jesus” (4:10-11) into the personal life of the Lord Jesus Christ would have great difficulty in making Paul’s experience of “always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus” (2 Corinthians 4:10) into the Apostle enduring the physical and personal death of the Lord Jesus.

[3]              None of the texts that indicate that the believer’s spiritual life is derived from the Lord Jesus, and abused to affirm that Christ Himself lives the Christian life, support the notion that a certain higher class of Christians lives a “Christ-life” at a higher plane, while another mass that have not learned the alleged spiritual secret live a life at a lower plane.  Colossians 3:4 and Galatians 2:20 are true for all believers, not a special few.  It is true that only some believers experience the kind of persecution that the Apostle Paul mentioned in 2 Corinthians 4, but this fact provides no assistance to those who affirm that Christ lives the Christian life, as they generally study devotional literature promulgating their theological notions to leap to the higher plane of the “Christ-life” rather than seeking to be persecuted.

                It is also noteworthy that Colossians 3 also says nothing about a single faith decision whereby certain believers allegedly access Christ to live the Christian life for them.  Rather, the truth of Colossians 3:4 produces commands to think on heavenly things (3:2), put sin to death (3:5), cease from anger and dishonesty (3:8-9), practice holy deeds (3:12), forgive (3:13), love (3:14), be thankful (3:15), fill oneself up with Scripture (3:16), and so on.

[4]              Compare John 6:57; 14:19; the Theanthropic life of Christ as Mediator is derived from the Father, and, as the Theanthropos, He communicates life to His own.

[5]              “When our Lord said, ‘I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing’ (John 15:5), He certainly meant that the vital union between Him and his people is something more than that which may subsist between disciples and their master, — a union including merely trust, congeniality, and affection. The influence to which the fruitfulness of the believer is attributed is something more than the influence of the truth which He taught; however that truth may be applied or enforced. Their abiding in Him, and He in them, is something more than abiding in the profession and belief of the truth. Christ is the head of the Church not merely as its ruler, but as the source of its life. It is not I, says the Apostle, that live, ‘but Christ liveth in me’ (Galatians 2:20). ‘Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?’ (2 Corinthians 13:5). It is from Him, as the same Apostle teaches us, that the whole body derives those supplies by which it lives and grows (Ephesians 4:16). ‘Because I live, ye shall live also’ (John 14:19). ‘I am the resurrection, and the life’ (John 11:25). ‘I am that bread of life’ (John 6:48). ‘He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him’ (John 6:56). ‘This is that bread which came down from heaven: … he that eateth of this bread shall live forever’ (John 6:58). ‘We shall be saved by his life’ (Romans 5:10). ‘The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45). ‘As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself” (John 5:26). ‘Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him’ (John 17:2). ‘Your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.’ (Colossians 3:3, 4). The Scriptures, therefore, plainly teach that there is a vital union between Christ and his people; that they have a common life analogous to that which exists between the vine and its branches, and between the head and members of the body. The believer is truly partaker of the life of Christ” (Systematic Theology, by Charles Hodge, part. 3, Soteriology. Chapter 14, “Vocation.”).

[6]           pg. 557, Perfectionism, vol. 2, Chapter 4, “The ‘Higher Life’ Movement.” Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003; reprint of 1932 Oxford ed.

[7]              The idea that Christ’s own personal holiness is imparted to Christians has properly been rejected by Baptists as unbiblical.  In the words of the London Baptist Association in 1704, “It is the opinion of this Assembly that the doctrine of sanctification by the impartation of the holiness of Christ’s nature does, in its consequences, render inherent holiness by the Holy Spirit unnecessary, and tends to overthrow natural, as well as revealed religion” (pg. 171, Chapter 8, Bye-Paths in Baptist History, J. J. Goadby.  Elec. acc. Baptist History Collection CD, ver. 1. Paris, AK: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2005).

The Gospel and Separation: The Appearance on the Ground

Some reading "the debate" about the gospel and the place and meaning of repentance relegate it to just semantics and "can't we all just get along."  This to them is nothing more than an intramural skirmish between fellowshiping brethren.  That's how some choose to characterize these differences over the gospel, but it isn't how I look at them.

In order for you perhaps to grasp the difference between what John Mincy wrote in the Proclaim and Defend article on repentance and what I'm espousing (here and here), you might consider how his position often looks on the ground.  It may not have looked like this at the church he pastored, or at least exactly like what I'm going to describe, but it very often does look how I'm going to describe it.  There's enough wrong with the doctrine itself, arising from a contorted hermeneutic, so that it contradicts the Word of God.  That's bad enough, but I want to draw the picture of how it applies, which is also frequently why it is a popular doctrine to hold.

First, let me digress -- there is a historic departure from orthodox soteriology that far predates what I'm writing about here, called Sandemanianism, and I believe its trajectory moves toward corruption existent at the time of the writing of the New Testament epistles.  In its worst form, grace is turned into lasciviousness (2 Peter, Jude) and used as an occasion of the flesh (Galatians 5).

Now back to the subject:  on the ground, the world still rejects even the Mincy position on repentance, even as in this world many won't give a preacher the time of day with anything he says.   It's not really so much because people so dislike this belief about repentance, as they don't want to hear any preaching, good or bad.

Nevertheless, with evangelism according to the Mincy position on repentance, the evangelist focuses on Jesus as Savior.  Faced with the alternative, people very often want to go to heaven -- they want to be saved from hell.  Jesus will save them and it's free, so they don't have to work for it and really can't work for it.   They just take the gift by accepting Jesus as Savior.  Will they do that?  Their lives are messed with sin, but Jesus will save them.  They don't have to be messed up and don't have to go to hell -- they can go to heaven.  If they want to ask Jesus to save them, they can just place their faith in Him, trust in Him, and stop trusting in themselves, because they could only mess it up. If the evangelist takes it one step further, and I'm not sure Mincy would, but if someone is already to this point, then he can ask the person to pray with him to trust in Jesus as Savior.

So, if the person has trusted Jesus as His Savior, according to the above doctrine, he's saved. According to Mincy, he's also repented, because he isn't trusting in himself any more and that's about which he needed to change his mind in order to be saved.   In the Mincy presentation, the sinner changes his mind about the direction of his faith -- not himself anymore but now Jesus.  This is how it reads on many different tracts and website offerings from the many churches advocating this position.

Is the above person saved now?  Some reading here would say, "Yes."  They agree with Mincy. Others would say, "Maybe."  Do we have a basis for saying anyone who agreed to the above content was saved?  I don't think so, but I would also say, "Maybe."  I might add, "Probably not though."  Most people that go through the above presentation and even pray along afterwards aren't actually saved.  The fact that someone says, "maybe," means to many fundamentalists and evangelicals that the Mincy position clears the bar of acceptability.  They can still fellowship, because even though they might disagree, his position doesn't wreck the gospel enough to separate over it.  They wish, you know, it were a little more clear, but it isn't a false gospel.  In addition, many people make false professions, and you can't control that.  False professions will happen to everyone in Christian work.

People do make false professions, but let's not fool ourselves, the tack taken by those who believe what Mincy does, even if he's not right there himself with the method, is not what Jesus or the Apostles did, not how they operated.  It's taking a very selective reading of passages mostly out of context and then extrapolating a tactic from it.  Even if the "evangelist" is convinced now that what he's saying is true, it is deception of the worst possible kind.  Anyone who believes this, and then later goes to hell, I'm pretty sure will be thinking it was a false gospel while he's serving his eternal sentence there.

The Mincy position church rejoices in the profession of faith.  A sinner has "repented," so, I guess, heaven is rejoicing too.  However, this is no prodigal returning, not even like the prodigal's return.  "A soul won" excites others to go do the same with the same message and method, so more of it occurs. Yes, some of the professions don't "stick."  They don't, "but that doesn't mean those people weren't saved," since salvation doesn't come by works.  Then hopefully in the future, some fruit will show after the professor is dedicated and Jesus becomes his Lord, that is, he participates in "sanctification repentance."

Almost any problem in a church that takes the Mincy position on repentance can be chalked up to a lack of dedication.  There doesn't have to be an expectation of biblical living, because here's a person who has made it only through the first tier, where Jesus is his Savior.  He can't get saved by works and works are not expected, because works can't be "frontloaded."  His continued carnality occurs because he hasn't yet grown enough.  At some point in the future, hopefully he will, after he gets dedicated.

To get to dedication, revivalist preachers are regularly called upon to preach, so the church can have "revival."  These revivalist preachers are an itinerant band, who have crafted usually a few messages, very fine tuned and emotional things, that can get the people of the church fired up again.

I'm not saying that a church doesn't need constant vigilance regarding obedience to scripture. Sanctification involves struggle.  This sanctification for believers is the body life of a church, exhorting one another at every meeting and provoking one another to love and good works, strengthening the feebleminded, supporting the weak, and warning the unruly.

The Mincy type repentance churches have revival meetings with an "evangelist," who is skilled in a gathering at procuring decisions from unsaved people to receive Jesus as Savior and then to stir up the ones who have accepted Jesus as Savior in the past.  This role isn't anywhere in scripture, but it follows the doctrine and practice.

Compatible with the above view of repentance often comes a difference on the ministry of the Holy Spirit.  The leaders and their people often covet another outpouring of the Spirit, a kind of visitation from Him with power. Frequently this experience is called the baptism and this is how someone can get to the next level of dedication, where Jesus takes the throne of the person who had accepted Jesus as Savior in the past.  If this event will occur, a church or some of it must get serious about having this experience and will often pray with the hope of an explosive outcome.

I said the Mincy position is more popular.  It's easier to present because it's more like what people want to hear.  The emphasis is on what people naturally like about salvation.  It's easier to get a profession.  It sounds more compassionate.  A person doesn't have to change.  He probably won't, but the pressure to change is greatly relieved.  Since it's easier to preach this message, it's also easier to find workers.  Because there will be more results, the people seeing them will be more greatly encouraged in their involvement.  People are more likely to stay with the acceptance of more carnality.  Since the others will expect it, they won't be inclined to confront.  It's easier not to confront.

I'm not writing, here and now, what the alternative looks like.  I am telling you that the above though is not what my church looks or acts like.  We don't evangelize that way.  We don't present repentance that way.  We don't talk about sanctification that way.  It's very, very different.  The church that takes the Mincy position is like a whole different religion.  People need to know this difference.

When church leaders and their churches don't act like anything is wrong with the Mincy position or that it isn't an issue of fellowship, people are confused and deceived.  Churches will not be discouraged at all from being like what I have described above.  The false gospel will spread.  You or your non-separating church have given these churches no reason to be any different.

The Gospel and Separation: What's Worth Separating Over?

The Apostle Paul writes in Galatians 1:8-9:

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

If someone preaches another gospel, let him be accursed.  This expresses the maximum in separation. If someone knows there is something worth separating over, he knows that the gospel is worth separating over.

Evangelicals don't talk about separation, but they will say the gospel is the basis of unity, intimating that it is also the basis for separation, since you can't have one without the other.  If you aren't uniting, then you are separating.  Many fundamentalists say the gospel and those doctrines upon which the gospel depends are a basis of separation.

Included in the subject of the gospel is whether repentance is necessary and, if so, what it means.  At what point does error about repentance result in a different gospel?  In light of what Paul wrote, this should be a concern.  With what evangelicals and fundamentalists say about the gospel, one would think they would be more concerned about it as well.  I'm surprised at the indifference, so what is this all about?

Last week on Wednesday, I wrote something about an article on repentance by John Mincy at the FBF website.  From what I understand, about half of the FBF board members would agree with Mincy and the other half not.  Am I to assume that the members who disagree see Mincy's position as not sufficient enough error to harm the gospel?  Even if I think there are more reasons to separate than the gospel, I wonder why what Mincy teaches isn't enough of a perversion of the gospel to separate over it.  If the gospel is, as Kevin Bauder likes to say and write, "the boundary of Christian fellowship," then how does this difference on repentance relate to that boundary? Men should at least know why the difference on repentance doesn't qualify as a separating issue, even though it is about the gospel.  I haven't heard why not -- ever.  It begs the question, "How much corruption of the gospel merits separation like the Apostle Paul talked about?"

Many times the focus on gospel perversion relates to the issue Paul confronted, that is, adding works to grace.  Maybe fundamentalists would separate over botching up the Trinity or the deity of Christ, because that is another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4), who doesn't save.  Readers here know that I believe that Jack Hyles taught a false gospel.  From a doctrinal standpoint, what I am reading from Mincy is very similar, if not the same, to what Hyles taught.  At what point does repentance dip below a tolerable level?

If you asked John Mincy if he believed repentance was necessary for salvation, he would say, "yes," I'm sure.  He would call it "justification-repentance."  If you ask a Mormon if he believes in Jesus, he would say, "yes," I'm sure too.  Saying that repentance is what the Bible says it is, does John Mincy believe in repentance?   He says he believes repentance is necessary for salvation, but is his teaching biblical repentance?  I wrote that it wasn't, but does his version so change the gospel that it is now "another gospel" or a false gospel?  The FBF board members at least treat his position as a non-separating issue.  They remain in fellowship with him to this day.

If Mincy wrote an article in which he turned to a King James Only position or he had embraced the belief that women wearing pants are an abomination, what many of them would call non-essentials, I'm very sure he would have received extreme censure far and wide from fundamentalists.  He advocates for a perversion of repentance and he receives indifference.  Are the board members of the FBF indifferentists?  Are those who fellowship with or in the FBF indifferentists?  If what Mincy says is acceptable, it's no wonder there has been essentially silence through the decades on Jack Hyles and Curtis Hutson.  Thousands are sucked into the vortex of their false teaching without warning.  Their corruptions are an acceptable iteration of the gospel for the FBF.

In the last year or two, James White sat down for an interview with Steven Anderson on the version issue.  Anderson maintains a repentance blacklist site to espouse his corrupted gospel.  He started that site long before his conversation with White.  White treated him like he was a fellow Christian.  Most important to White was Anderson's position on Bible versions.  For all the talk about the gospel either as the center or at the boundary of fellowship by evangelicals, conservative evangelicals also often behave like the version issue or cultural issues are more important than the gospel.

I contend that advocacy of modern versions overrules gospel among fundamentalists.  Your view of repentance is less important than what version of the Bible you use.  This belies the gospel boundary contention.  In many cases now, fundamentalists want to be sure they have liberty to listen to their music, dress like they want, and keep their choice of entertainment more than they're concerned about the relationship of the doctrine of repentance to the gospel.  It doesn't engender that much interest. The discussion about gospel boundaries is mainly about maintaining gospel minimization for the purpose of a larger possible tent.  Restrictions in fellowship stop at the gospel, they say, but they really are less restrictive.  Neither does your gospel need to include repentance.

Keswick and Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Experience Over Grammatical Exegesis

Keswick did not interpret Scripture solely based on the grammatical-historical significance of passages.  On the contrary, experience was employed as an extra-biblical hermeneutic with which to interpret Scripture.  Consequently, it is unsurprising that Keswick taught: “There are times in our Christian life in which we have . . . to . . . accept as children from God things which often seem to be, and are, in contradiction with what appears to us the teaching of Scripture.”[1]  By way of contrast, “The strong concern for the exact meaning of the printed word . . . is one of the principal things that distinguish fundamentalism from other less intellectual forms of American revivalism or from the more experientially oriented holiness tradition or . . . pentecostalism.”[2]  Keswick's experience-based hermeneutics passed into its Higher Life successor, Pentecostalism, for adopting Keswick hermeneutics and accepting what was contrary to what one thought was the teaching of Scripture was very important if one was to embrace charismatic fanaticism.  Donald Dayton explains:

[There is a] distinct hermeneutic, a distinctively Pentecostal manner of appropriating the Scriptures. In contrast to magisterial Protestantism [and Baptist orthodoxy] . . . Pentecostalism reads the rest of the New Testament through Lukan eyes . . . [placing] [n]arrative material [over] . . . didactic . . .Pauline texts. . . . In making this claim, Pentecostalism stands in a long tradition of a “subjectivizing hermeneutic.” . . . The “higher life” antecedents to Pentecostalism in the nineteenth century used a similar approach to Scripture in appropriating elements of the Old Testament Heilsgeschichte devotionally. The exodus from Egypt, the wilderness wanderings, and crossing Jordan River into the Promised Land all became stages in the normative pattern of the spiritual pilgrimage from conversion into the “second blessing” (“Beulah Land”).[3]

Thus, in the infancy of Pentecostalism at Azuza Street in Los Angeles, “[T]he operative hermeneutical principle [was that] . . . ‘the literal Word could be temporarily overruled by the living Spirit.’ . . . [I]n order to continue the [Pentecostal] revival, it was necessary for God to act independently of the regulating structure provided in the written Word.”[4]  Consequently, God's commands regulating the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians were “ignored . . . in all the early Pentecostal meetings. . . . Pentecostals . . . were not overly concerned with the problem of reconciling their experience with 1 Corinthians, chapter 12."[5]  Pentecostal historians admit that their movement arose and spreads by events and experiences, not by careful preaching of the Word, interpreted grammatically and historically.  Synan writes:

Pentecostal Christianity tends to find its rise in events . . . [and recognizes the] priority of “event.” . . . These events . . . giv[e] a distinct focus to one’s reading of Scripture. The focus is upon the realistic, even the empirical, results . . . a dramatic breakthrough of supernatural power, a display of charismatic phenomena. It is not the case of a teaching that gains a hearing, but events that attract a following. . . . [F]undamentalists have consistently criticized pentecostals for departing from a theological accent on God’s “propositional revelation” in the Scripture. (pgs. 25-27, 209, Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Vinson Synan)

 For the charismatic, the “exegetical difficulties which may arise [in Pentecostal doctrine] are, in the final analysis, more than balanced for Pentecostals by the experiential proofs.”[6] The mind must not be used to interpret Scripture, since "under rational inquiry pentecostalism falters," as do its Higher Life precursors.[7] Experience[8] is supposedly superior to Biblical theology and logical study of Biblical teaching.[8] Thus, both through continuationism and through the rejection of a literal interpretation of Scripture for an exaltation of experience, the Higher Life theology of Robert P. and Hannah W. Smith “gave birth to the Keswick Convention . . . and Pentecostal movements.”[9]

In summary, Charles S. Gede, professor at the Southwestern Assemblies of God College in Waxahachie, Texas, explains:

[T]he operative hermeneutical principle [was that] . . . “the literal Word could be temporarily overruled by the living Spirit.” . . . (1) there was an awareness of the scriptural regulations governing public glossolalia, and (2) [Azuza street leaders] were unwilling to apply the provisions of the written Word consistently. Why were they willing to let the inconsistency continue? . . . [“We] have seen over and over again during the past fifteen months, that where Christian workers have suppressed these manifestations [because of Scriptural teaching], the Holy Spirit has been grieved, the work has stopped. . . . Who are we to dictate to an all-wise God as to how He shall work in anyone?[”] . . . [I]n order to continue the revival, it was necessary for God to act independently of the regulating structure provided in the written Word . . . pragmatism was the method used to solve this problem[.] The existence of the third presupposition would explain the practice of the selective application of biblical authority. On certain issues biblical authority was asserted vehemently; on other issues it was viewed as antagonistic to the acts of God by his Spirit. That is particularly true with respect to their beliefs and practices of glossolalia. The three presuppositions would be implemented by the hermeneutical principle of pragmatism. . . . The desire and attempts to perpetuate the revival developed an unacknowledged presupposition that the imposition of any structure, including that set forth in the written Word, nullified the experiential activity of God. An implementing hermeneutical principle of pragmatism flowed from that presupposition. (pgs. 90-92, “Glossolalia at Azuza Street: A Hidden Presupposition?” Charles S. Gaede. Westminster Theological Journal 51:1 [Spring 1989] 77-92)[11]

Learn more about this subject here.

TDR

[1] Pg. 183, Keswick’s Authentic Voice, ed. Stevenson. The quotation is from the famous and influential sermon “The Sufficiency of Grace” (pgs. 183-188, ibid) by the renowned Keswick leader and Faith Cure continuationist Otto Stockmayer and was preached at Keswick in 1896 (pg. 140, ibid). Stevenson’s compilation of Keswick messages in his Keswick’s Authentic Voice was, as validated and endorsed by many Keswick leaders, from the General Director of the China Inland Mission, J. Oswald Sanders, to the Chairman of the Keswick Convention Council, A. T. Houghton. The book, and Otto Stockmeyer’s sermon, does present “indeed ‘Keswick’s Authentic Voice’” through the “outstanding addresses” selected (pgs. 9, 11, ibid), including Stockmeyer’s.

[2]  Pg. 61, Fundamentalism and American Culture, George Marsden.

[3]  Pgs. 22-24, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism, Dayton.

[4]   Pg. 146, Vision of the Disinherited: The Making of American Pentecostalism, Robert Anderson. 

[5] Pg. 163, ibid.

[6] Pg. 62, A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness, F. D. Bruner, citing pg. 26, The Heavenly Gift: Studies in the Work of the Holy Spirit, Pearlman (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1935) and pg. 39, Systematic Theology, Williams, vol. 1.

[7] Pg. 206, Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. Vinson Synan.

[8]         Bruner notes:

The modern family-book of Pentecostalism has . . . the following main chapters: Wesley—revivalism—Finney—the holiness movement. In each chapter personal experience is given special stress . . . [and] in the Methodist and holiness movements, the personal experience most stressed was that which was subsequent to . . . conversion . . . the experience which came in the Pentecostal movement to be called the baptism in the Holy Spirit. (pg. 47, A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness, Frederick Dale Bruner. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970)

[9]         Compare pg. 6, “A Plea for Experience,” The Pentecostal Evangel: The Official Organ of the Assemblies of God, 448-449, June 10, 1922.

[10]         July 27-28, The Christian’s Secret of a Holy Life, Hannah W. Smith, ed. Dieter.

[11]         Pgs. 90-92, “Glossolalia at Azuza Street: A Hidden Presupposition?” Charles S. Gaede. Westminster Theological Journal 51:1 (Spring 1989) 77-92.

Repentance Isn't This Nor Is It This Complicated -- Please

My attention was drawn to an article at Proclaim & Defend on repentance by John Mincy.  After giving his take on why repentance is a controversial issue, he begins explaining that what John the Baptist preached was "sanctification repentance," the repenting already converted people do on a regular basis after they've already been converted.

John the Baptist, according to Mincy, is preaching to Jews in the covenant community to repent like one would after he's been saved, but in this case to keep in good covenantal standing in an apostate nation Israel.  It's an impossible, completely convoluted take on John's preaching.  The repentance of John was for the remission of sins.  It was the same repentance that Jesus preached.   John and Jesus were not preaching different messages, different gospels, two different meanings of repentance.

John preached repentance in Mark 1 and in Mark 2 Jesus called sinners to repentance, not the righteous. Neither Jesus nor John were calling the righteous to repent.  Both John and Jesus preached, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."  This is not complicated.  Their audiences needed to repent or go to hell.  Those who did not go to heaven would end instead in hell.  If you keep reading in Matthew 3, John was preparing the way for the Lord.  He prepared them to receive the king.  They needed to turn to their king, to their Messiah.  He had arrived and they needed to repent.  John was the herald of Jesus, the kerux of Jesus, so he was delivering the same message as the King.  They wouldn't have the king or the kingdom if they didn't turn around.  These weren't converted people.

The long expected reign of the Messiah had arrived in Palestine and John was preaching that.  John preached that, not because they were ready, but because they were not ready.  As you move further in Matthew 3, John's message wasn't one of sanctification, but one of fiery wrath.  They were a generation of vipers, who were warned to flee from the wrath to come.  If they did not repent, they would be burned up like chaff in a fire.  This was a warning of hell.

The same message that John the Baptist preached is what Jonah preached to Nineveh in Jonah 3:9, "Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?"  Jesus echoed this when He said, "Repent or perish" (Luke 13:3-5).  This was the same message He told His disciples to preach when He gave them the great commission in Luke 24:47, "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

Those in the Jewish nation could become a part of the kingdom through personal conversion.  They weren't going to get into the kingdom just because they were in the nation.  Everyone needed to repent personally, and then they could.  It's obvious that repentance was salvific, not a repeated act of sanctification.  No way.

There are so many problems with Mincy's presentation.  He perverts repentance so much that it would take an article three times the length of his to correct it all.  Someone should start with what I've written so far.  Mincy suggests that repentance started taking a new meaning with the apostles, differing than even what Jesus and John preached, that he calls "justification-repentance" in contrast to the "sanctification-repentance" of the gospels.  The justification repentance is essentially the repent of your unbelief that you hear from Hyles-types.  A person wasn't trusting in Christ and when he starts trusting, he has repented in his mind of that lack of trust.  Whereas he wasn't believing before, now he is, and that's repentance among those who preach what the Hyles-types preach.   What Mincy presents is completely, absolutely wrong.  There's no way to get what he says from a plain meaning of the text.

Mincy attempts to use Geerhardus Vos to support his view and in so doing completely misrepresents what Vos himself taught about repentance, who wrote (Geerhardus Vos, The Kingdom of God and the Church, P&R, 1972, pp. 92-93):

Our Lord’s idea of repentance is as profound and comprehensive as His conception of righteousness. Of the three words that are used in the Greek Gospels to describe the process, one emphasizes the emotional element of regret, sorrow over the past evil course of life, metamelomai; Matt. 12:29-32; a second expresses reversal of the entire mental attitude, metanoeo, Matt. 12:41, Luke 11:32; 15:7, 10; the third denotes a change in the direction of life, one goal being substituted for another, epistrephomai; Matt. 13:15 (and parallels); Luke 17;4, 22:32. Repentance is not limited to any single faculty of the mind: it engages the entire man, intellect, will and affections… Again, in the new life which follows repentance the absolute supremacy of God is the controlling principle. He who repents turns away from the service of mammon and self to the service of God.

Mincy uses Vos out of context to teach a view he would never have taught.

If the gospel is the core or the boundary, however evangelicals or fundamentalists want to explain it, what happens if they can't agree on the gospel itself?  Do mere portions of the gospel became the sole basis of fellowship, unity, or separation?  Doctrine already has been diminished to the gospel.  At what point does the minimization stop?

John Mincy is Board Emeritus for the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International.  I think it is safe to say that there are those on some of the FBFI boards who absolutely disagree with Mincy about this, while others would have really appreciated his article.  His article is not just poorly done, but it perverts scripture and the gospel.  It is not what the Bible teaches about salvation.  What's more important to the FBFI?  Is it clarity on the gospel or the politics of fundamentalism?

*****************************

Our Word of Truth Conference for 2015, which is November 11-15, will be on the gospel.  For the next few years we will have sessions in the morning dealing with the gospel from which we will write a book, like we did with A Pure Church from the first three years of the Word of Truth Conference.  You will be able to get the audio from the conference and likely the video from the morning sessions.  You can listen to past conferences here at the conference website and see past videos here from the conference at youtube.

Rampant Ideological Hylesism, pt. 3

Part One   Part Two

Many Christians would declare their dissatisfaction with the culture, but churches have more to do with the culture than any other influence, based upon what scripture teaches.  Churches decided to capitulate to the culture as a means of success.  Most do that today, to the extent that most don't even know they're doing it any more.  They now think that's just what churches do.  If you're not doing it, you don't know what you're doing.  You sort of don't know how to do church if you're not capitulating in some way to the culture.  It reminds me of what some people say about professional sports -- "if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying."

The number of people now exposing what's going on in churches, as it relates to these church growth strategies, is small and relegated to insignificance.  You'll hurt less from the critique than you will in not participating in the activities.  Men feel more the external pain of unpopularity than the internal pain of conviction over capitulation.

I have called this "Hylesism," defined as "using human means to attract a crowd for evangelism." Could there be a better name?  Many Southern Baptists and Presbyterians and Reformed and Evangelical Free and "non-denominational" haven't even heard of Hyles.  A lot of Pelagians never heard of Pelagius, but his views are still Pelagianism.  Why not Finneyism?  Doesn't this go back to Charles Finney, really?  I think there is a Finneyism, but it wasn't about church growth.  What about Fullerism, because Fuller Theological Seminary has greatly influenced the church growth movement? The talk of "church growth" in the 1980s was Jack Hyles.  Some evangelicals might argue that Fuller had more to do with the greatest of what we see today, according to the definition above.  Renee Ouelette last year wrote glowingly of Jack Hyles as a church growth innovator:

They are always looking for a better way to get the job done, a more efficient method of disseminating the truth, a vehicle by which they can get the Gospel to more individuals.  Dr. Jack Hyles was an innovator. He was largely responsible for the implementation of the bus ministry in many of our churches. He had a huge influence in encouraging us to engage in personal soulwinning. He used promotions in a way that had not previously been used. (Dr. Hyles gave free cruises as Sunday School prizes back in the ‘60’s!)

Hyles was at least at the headwaters of the church growth movement and no one did it better and faster and influenced more people in his day than Hyles.

Many different qualities distinguish Jack Hyles in a negative way.  He corrupted the gospel.  He was a revivalist, generating an atmosphere to persuade people the Holy Spirit was involved.  He brought an unbiblical style of leadership.  He dumbed down preaching.  His pastor's conference reinvented "the conference" and spread the methodology far and wide.  He popularized a unique brand of continuationist doctrine of the Holy Spirit.   Hyles was many things, however, I'm focusing on this ideology: "using human means to attract a crowd for evangelism."  I contend that focus to be the sine qua non of Hyles.  He boasted the world's largest church and the world's largest Sunday School, and even though not everyone embraced all things Hyles, his tactics for church growth traveled well.

Hyles is gone, but Hylesism continues all over.  Let me give one innocuous example that almost everyone today would say is harmless.  The nation, even the world, celebrates what is called "Christmas."  What is Christmas?  Christmas is an opportunity to put on a gigantic production to lure unbelievers.  The people in a church, who won't talk about Jesus, have the easiest time or occasion of the year to bring Him up in conversation at Christmas.  It is the red carpet of church mention. The world gives Christians a pass at Christmas.  The church designs an elaborate shindig of music so its church members, who won't even have to talk about Jesus, can invite people to the concert, a free concert and perhaps a dramatic production.  People who wouldn't darken the door of a church will come to one of these things.

Who doesn't use Christmas as a method?  Conservative evangelicals use Christmas.  They will say it's one of their main ways of reaching the lost in their community.  When they think the program through, they have the audience in mind.  The entire program centers on what the lost will think.  If they use Christmas, why not Easter?  Why do this twice a year?  Why not do it every week?  If it works with the incarnation, why not use for all things Jesus?  Jesus is turned into a commodity for church growth and especially His birth.  Who can't resist a baby in a manger?  It's a natural opportunity, they would say.  This is all Hylesism.

Hylesism replaces the simplicity of biblical methodology.  It is a form of deceit.  There is more than a bit of showmanship with the lights and stage and microphones and sound with the indications of a club or an act.  The acceptability now relates more to the degree, not the strategy.  It's permissible "if it doesn't go too far."  Is this right in the first place?  Did Jesus do this?  It's not what Jesus did.  The methodology the Apostle Paul confronted in 1 Corinthians 1-3 is far more innocuous.  He repudiated rhetorical techniques that would have still been less than the equivalent in the Greek culture.  He's saying, "Don't do these types of things."  Man isn't to receive glory for why everything works.  The model of Jesus contradicts Hylesism and the Apostle Paul renounced it -- all of it.

"I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" Examined: part 3 of 4 in Does Christ live the Christian Life for the Christian? The Keswick View of Galatians 2:20 Examined

            The “I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me” in Galatians 2:20 does not mean that Paul actually did not live the Christian life and the Lord Jesus lived it instead of him.  Such a conclusion would neglect the fact that Paul specifically says “I live.”  Furthermore, Paul does not say, “Christ liveth instead of me,” but “Christ liveth in me.”  The preposition en, not anti or huper, is employed.  The “yet not I” clause means simply that Paul did not have strength sourced in himself to follow the Lord, but he received grace from Christ to enable him to “work out [his] own salvation with fear and trembling [since] it is God which worke[d] in [him] both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:12-13).  Paul personally “strived” to serve the Lord, but nonetheless his service was what “Christ hath . . . wrought by [him]” (Romans 15:20, 18).  Parallel Pauline texts shed much light on the “not I, but Christ” portion of Galatians 2:20:

1.) “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband.”  (1 Corinthians 7:10).  Paul certainly did command the wife not to depart from her husband.  He was very active in making this command.  However, more importantly, it was God Himself who made the command through Paul.  It would be poor exegesis to conclude from this verse that Paul himself did not really command wives not to leave their husbands because the command was sourced in God.

2.) But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me” (1 Corinthians 15:10).  Obviously God’s enabling grace strengthened Paul to work, and all the glory for Paul’s labor was given to the grace of God, as is evidenced by the “yet not I, but the grace of God” affirmation.  Nonetheless, Paul labored very actively and fervently, indeed, “more abundantly than . . . all.”  It would be poor exegesis to conclude from this verse that Paul really did not labor at all because his ability to labor came from God.

3.) “Now then it is no more I that do it [transgress], but sin that dwelleth in me . . . . Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” (Romans 7:17, 20; cf. Romans 7:14-25). Before Paul was converted, his entire being consented to and produced nothing but sin.  His statement in Romans 7:17, 20 means that the sins that he did as a regenerate person no longer proceeded from the unified desire of his whole person.  Rather, Paul’s transgressions were now sourced in the remnants of sinfulness that remained within him.  Nonetheless, whenever Paul sinned, the Apostle was by no means passively employed by some exterior agent moving him unconsciously to transgress—he still chose to do so himself.

4.) The Old Testament, and other New Testament texts,[1] present a similar picture.  Joseph tells his brothers in Genesis 45:8:  “So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God; and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt.”  Joseph’s “not you . . . but God” statement does not mean that Joseph’s brothers did not sell him into slavery (cf. 45:5, “ye sold me hither”), but simply that God was the ultimate sovereign source of his being sold.  In Exodus 16:8,  “Moses said . . . [T]he LORD heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against him: and what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the LORD,” but the affirmation that Israel’s grumbling was ultimately against Jehovah certainly did not mean that when “the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness” (Exodus 16:2) they did not really murmur against Moses and Aaron.

            Similarly, Paul’s “not I, but Christ” statement in Galatians 2:20 means that the source of the Christian life that Paul lived was not his own inherent ability or strength, but Christ’s grace and power. The Apostle’s declaration models the pattern set by his Savior, that Son of Man who stated “I can of mine own self do nothing” (John 5:30) and “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise” (John 5:19).  The Lord Jesus, in His human nature, was entirely submissive to and dependent upon the enablement He received beyond measure from God.  One sees, however, extremely active labor for the Lord in the incarnate Christ.  The Divine Person of the Son also did not work independently of the Person of the Father, but nonetheless the Son of God actively did whatsoever He saw the Father do.

In Galatians 2:19-21 Paul is proving that he is dead to the law (2:19a) and not trusting in the law for salvation and frustrating the grace of God by so doing (2:21) but instead is living unto God (2:19b, 2:20).  He is not proving that somehow he does not live the Christian life but Christ lives it instead.  Paul and all Christians are given strength and grace from Christ, apart from whom they can do nothing good, John 15:5, and they are to live by faith.  Certainly the facts of the saint’s union with Christ, the Savior’s indwelling presence, the spiritual life that is derived from Him, and the power He gives believers to will and do of His good pleasure are glorious truths worthy of that joyful acceptance and humble meditation that results in loving, faith-based obedience.  However, to go beyond the actual declarations of Galatians 2:20 to say that the believer does not live the Christian life but Christ Himself does it instead is to make the verse affirm what it does not say and thus grieve the Spirit and displease Christ. Such an affirmation also confuses the Christian who believes it, hinders his sanctification, and opens the way to serious Christological error.  The glorious truths of Galatians 2:20 should neither be minimized and ignored nor turned into something other than they are by illegitimate extrapolation.

See here for this entire study.

TDR

---

[1]              For example, Christ tells persecuted believers: “But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost” (Mark 13:11; cf. Matthew 10:19-20; Luke 12:11-12; 21:14-15).  The Lord Jesus’ statement, “it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost,” did not mean that the persecuted saints in question did not actually open their mouths and consciously speak; rather, they indeed spoke, but the Spirit directed them and guided them.  Thus, the Lord could command, “speak ye,” for the very reason (“for”) that their words did not originate in themselves (“it is not ye that speak”) but in God the Spirit.  Note the following related texts:  Matthew 10:40; Mark 9:37; Luke 10:16; John 12:44; 13:20; Romans 13:2; 1 Thessalonians 4:8.