We’re doing things a little bit differently this year, so here are some details for you.

1. Early bird registration is $10 less than normal and will run through 12/31/11. Register now and save!
2. If you are a first time attendee, we would like to invite you to come as our guests. Your registration will be free. (Yes, free!) We do still need you to register though, so we know how many people to expect. Also, you are responsible for the cost of your own meals which must be purchased ahead of time on the registration page or by calling the Riley Center directly.
3. Which brings me to the next point: The FOOD!
   • Instead of those cold deli sandwiches we have done in past years, this year we are going to be offering hot buffet-style lunches. The cost per person will only be $2 more than in the past, but you will get a full meal, including tea/coffee, bread, salad, entree, and dessert. We hope this will allow conferees the time to enjoy fellowship during the lunch break, rather than driving around looking for a place to eat.
   • This year’s banquet will go back to being plated meals, similar to what we have offered in years past. There will be a change here as well though: banquet tickets will be just $20 each ($5 less than last year) and you may choose chicken or beef when you order your tickets.
   • Last year I spoke with several people who were unable to enjoy the banquet with us due to needing a special diet. This year there is a drop-down menu box where you can specify a vegetarian or gluten free meal.
   • Every year we purchase extra meals and every year people are upset when they sell out. Don’t miss out! Order your meals in advance and secure your seat!

So, how do you register for this wonderful event? Simply go to the Riley Center’s Registration Form here or call them at 817-923-1921 x2440. I hope to see you all there!

After preaching on Sunday at Upland Bible Church, a great Free Grace church pastored by Dick Olsen, I drove 2 hours to St. George, UT for the Huntsman World Senior Games.

On Monday I competed in the 3,000 meters racewalk (1.8 miles) and had a mediocre time. But at least I competed. I did get a silver medal. Of course, there were only 2 of us in 55-59.

Then yesterday I competed in the 1,500 meters (nearly 1 mile). I had a fairly good time and got another silver. Then 2 of the competitors invited me to go to Mt. Zion Natl Park for a supposedly easy hike.

We hiked to a place called Observation Point, looking over a mountain called Great White Throne. Anyhow the “easy hike” was anything but. We went fast and before long my pulse was maxing out. We climbed nearly 3,000 feet, which is over a half mile vertically. And instead of 4 total miles as I had thought, we hiked NINE MILES. Yikes. Nine miles up a mountain and then back down. It took us 4 hours. It was almost like doing a marathon.

Today I still had a 5K (3.1) to complete. I finished, but with another mediocre time (and another silver). I drove back to Las Vegas and everything is sore now (as I wait standby hoping to get back early).

The two guys I went up the mountain with also were in all the races I was. One of them, Tom, actually won first overall in all 3 races even though he is 60, two age groups above the lowest one (50-54). I was amazed to see how fit he and the other guy are. It gave me something to shoot for in the future.

The Hodges trilogy (called A Free Grace Primer, consisting of The Hungry Inherit, The Gospel Under Siege, and Grace in Eclipse) is nearly ready to go to the printer. A fresh copy is being printed now and I will give it a final proof tomorrow and hopefully it can be sent off on Friday.

Every year after the conference, we go through the comments people have left on our evaluation forms and try to ascertain what we could be doing better for next year. This year, we had several people request more, new, or different speakers (the need for women to do workshops was mentioned many times!) as well as one great idea about forming a committee to deal with the issue.

So, this year GES is doing things a little differently. We have formed a committee to select our speakers. The committee has voted on our theme, and we will be going with eschatology. Now, we are looking for folks who would be willing to teach either a plenary or workshop message for the 2012 Conference.

To be considered to speak, we need folks to submit a title and a 250 word (or less) abstract of their paper to Grant Hawley [pastor@gbcrichardson.org], who has graciously agreed to head the selection committee, by October 15th. The theme of the conference is eschatology, and papers that stick to that theme will be given special consideration, but other topics are welcome as well. Feel free to submit more than one idea if you like.

EDIT: Apologies for forgetting to mention the details on the time and place of the conference. For those who are wondering, the conference will be held April 23-26 2012 at the Riley Center in Fort Worth.

Read the rest of this entry

By Bob Wilkin

In a book entitled Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Pastor Rob Bell expresses some very unorthodox views.

Bell is the Pastor of the 10,000 member Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan. He is recognized as one of the leading spokesman for the emerging church movement.

Here are some of the unorthodox points Bell makes in this book based on initial reports, and based on comments he has made in advance of the book’s release:

• It is wrong to say that most people will spend eternity in hell.
• Hell is here on earth.
• Heaven is not just for those who believe in Jesus.

Yesterday Bell spoke in New York City to kick off his book tour. He was pressed multiple times during the session about whether hell is a real place. Lillian Kwon reports, “When pressed several times on whether he believes there is a hell, Bell only spoke of a hell on earth and provided no indication that he believes in an eternal place of punishment.”

Kwon points out as well that when asked if he were a universalist, Bell said, “No, if by universalist we mean there’s a giant cosmic arm that swoops everybody in at some point whether you want to be there or not.” However, note that the explanation raises more questions. The reason the question even arose is because his book implies he believes this. And even his answer does not deny universalism. Maybe in Bell’s view everyone will eventually want to be there.

Bell was very fuzzy, but the following points are what he seems to hold:

• There is no hell other than the hellish things people experience in this life.
• No one will be tormented forever.
• Most or all people will be in the Kingdom. If anyone isn’t there, it will be because they choose not to be there.
• If there are any who choose not to be there, Bell doesn’t speculate on what would happen to them, other than that no one will be tormented forever.

Over the past few weeks Bell has been severely criticized by leading theologians and pastors such as Al Mohler, John Piper, and John MacArthur. Here is an evangelistic issue in which Lordship Salvation advocates agree with Free Grace proponents.

We plan to provide an article-length review of this book in the Autumn issue of our Journal (Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society). And I plan to include some comments about Bell’s view in my upcoming book on the ten most misunderstood words in the Bible. Since one of those words is hell, this book will show the importance of clarity on the meaning of key Biblical words.

If you’d like to see a 3-minute YouTube video that Bell released about the book, it’s available online here. It is well worth watching.

I racewalked, with no running. But I did finish in just under 6 hours (5:47), which is not bad (13:16 pace). I came away unhurt, I think, except for soreness and a really big blister on my right heel.

I wore a shirt that said in big letters on the back ONCE SAVED, ALWAYS SAVED. About 10 people took the time during the race (as they were passing me) to say that they liked my shirt.
While I’d love to be able to run a marathon, I am very thankful to be able to still finish one at age 58, and in a reasonable time.

Response to Ardel Caneday’s Blog Post Entitled,
“Eternal Life, Both God’s Gift and Reward”
By Bob Wilkin

First I will weave in Caneday’s blog post with my comments. To set my words apart, I will put Caneday’s comments in blue and quotes from Zane in green. At the end, after Caneday’s comments end, I will have some concluding remarks.

Caneday begins as follows:

I am working on a writing project associated with The Race Set Before Us. As I was working on it something dawned upon me as I wrote the following segment. It concerns how Zane Hodges, and others who follow him, destroy their own case when they appeal to Romans 6:23 as Hodges does when he attempts to expound Galatians 6:8.

Where does Hodges make this connection? Caneday will tell us, sort of, in the words which follow.

Two interpretive keys govern how advocates of the loss-of-eternal-rewards view interpret Scripture: (1) salvation is past; rewards are future; and (2) salvation is free; rewards are earned. Therefore, understandably those who hold this view are concerned to separate biblical admonitions and warnings against loss from the grace of salvation because otherwise, as they view the matter, the grace of salvation and of eternal life would be earned by works. Popularity of this view owes much to the notes of The New Scofield Reference Bible, especially the note attached to 1 Corinthians 3:14.

God in the N.T. Scriptures offers to the lost, salvation; and for the faithful service of the saved, He offers rewards. The passages are easily distinguished by remembering that salvation is invariably spoken of as a free gift (e.g. Jn. 4:10; Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9), whereas rewards are earned by works (Mt. 10:42; Lk. 19:17; 1 Cor. 9:24-25; 2 Tim 4:7-8; Rev. 2:10; 22:12). A further distinction is that salvation is a present possession (Lk. 7:50; Jn. 3:36; 5:24; 6:47), whereas rewards are a future attainment, to be given at the rapture (2 Tim. 4:8; Rev. 22:12).[1]

The tone of authoritative finality and clarity concerning their interpretive keys—salvation is past; rewards are future; and salvation is free; rewards are earned—suggests that a sharp cleavage exists between the two classes of passages. So, one would expect that Scripture would never use words such as “salvation” or “eternal life” with future reference nor as the reward to be received. Yet, what do we find? In Galatians 6:7-10, which advocates of the loss-of-eternal-rewards view insist is about “rewards” not “salvation,” Paul admonishes,

Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow. If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit. So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time, if we do not give up. So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all, and especially for those of the family of faith (emphasis added).

Paul’s imagery of sowing and reaping mingles what loss-of-eternal-rewards view advocates separate. To them, even though Paul presents “eternal life” as the future reality we have not yet harvested poses no obstacle as Zane Hodges explains.

Caneday then quotes Zane Hodges:

Nothing is plainer than that the “everlasting life” of which Paul speaks is not free, but based on the moral merits of those who reap it…. Naturally Paul knew that eternal life was freely given (Rom. 6:23; see also Rom. 5:15-18), just as the Apostle John knew this. But Paul is not speaking about what the Galatians already have, but about what they may yet receive. Herein lies the key to this text.[2]

Caneday points the reader to page 87 of Hodges’s book The Gospel Under Siege. However, there is no such quote on page 87. I had to search the electronic version of the text we have at GES (we are hoping to release The Gospel Under Siege, along with The Hungry Inherit and Grace in Eclipse at our upcoming conference) to find the quote. The first line of what he quotes actually appears on the bottom of page 86.

Do you notice the ellipses, the four periods? That suggests that Caneday left something insignificant out. Well, what he left out is pretty important. Here is part of what he leaves out, “All becomes clear, however, if we simply remember that the Apostle is addressing believers (see, for example, 3:2-5) who have already been justified by faith and who possess everlasting life as a free gift.” Leaving that out lessens the impact of Zane’s point.

Caneday continues,

What is the key? To explain the passage Hodges uses the interpretive key found in The New Scofield Reference Bible.

This seems to imply that Hodges is merely parroting back some insight he gained from the New Scofield Reference Bible. While it would be fine if that were true, there is no evidence, to my knowledge, to support such an implication.

Caneday concludes his quote of Hodges as follows:

Here it should be stated clearly that in the New Testament eternal life is presented both as a free gift and as a reward merited by those who earn it. But one important distinction always holds true. Wherever eternal life is viewed as a reward, it is obtained in the future. But wherever eternal life is presented as a gift, it is obtained in the present.[3]

Now we return to the words of Caneday for the last paragraph of his blog post.

Even though Paul uses identical words, “eternal life,” in both Galatians 6:8 and Romans 6:23, Hodges severs “eternal life” as “reward” from “eternal life” as “gift” because he presumes that “eternal life,” when portrayed as a future reward, is earned by Christians and that the reward cannot be God’s gracious consummative bestowal of the gift of “eternal life” of which Christians now have but a taste through faith in Christ Jesus. He does not recognize that his appeal to Romans 6:23 actually contradicts his argument. This is because he fails to realize that everywhere that Paul speaks of “eternal life,” including in Romans 6:22-23, he invariably portrays “eternal life” with orientation to the future, as the life God will give for the age to come.[4] Romans 6:22 makes this explicit when Paul states, “you have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.” Then, Paul explains that this coming eternal life in Christ Jesus is God’s gift (6:23). Therefore, the passage Hodges uses to establish his separation between “eternal life” as a present possessed gift from “eternal life” as a future earned reward nullifies his claim. Paul identifies “eternal life,” which believers will receive in the day of resurrection, both as “God’s gift” and as something we will “reap.” Both describe “eternal life” as future.

In what sense does Hodges “sever” eternal life as a reward from eternal life as a gift? Hodges argues that one cannot earn everlasting life as a future reward, that is, abundance of everlasting life forever, without first having received the gift of everlasting life by faith alone. Hodges in no way severs the two.

Caneday never explains how Hodges understands everlasting life as a possible future reward. Hodges sees it, as I mention in the preceding paragraph, as more than the mere possession of spiritual life that can never be lost. It is a heightened ability to glorify the Lord Jesus, including ruling with Him in the life to come. In Hodges view, all believers will get into the Kingdom and serve Him, but only the persevering ones will rule with Him and have a special fullness of life.

That is the end of Caneday’s blog on Gal 6:8. It should be noted that Caneday does not understand Hodges interpretation of Rom 6:22-23. Here is a brief part of what Hodges wrote in his commentary on Romans:

“With sin, therefore, one receives what one has earned (wages). But eternal life is an unearned experience because at its core eternal life is the gift of God that is given in Christ Jesus our Lord. That is to say, by virtue of our being in Christ (see 6:3,4) we possess this gift. When we produce holiness, therefore, we are living out the gift that God gave us when we were justified by faith.”

To find the entirety of what Zane wrote about Romans 6:22-23, check out our Journal, or the commentary itself, which should be released by October 2011.

So, what is Caneday’s point? He seems to be saying, but does not make clear, that eternal life is in one sense a free gift now and in another different sense a future reward for work done in this life. What does that mean practically to the believer? Oddly, Caneday is not clear on that point either. Caneday’s view appears to be this: everlasting life which the believer has now is a free gift, but it is not guaranteed to last. If a believer does not sow to the Spirit in his daily living, he will fail to reap everlasting life in the day of resurrection. That is, the believer who sows to the flesh will be cast into the lake of fire along with all who fail to sow to the Spirit.

Possibly that is not Caneday’s view. Maybe he is taking the traditional Reformed view, which is this: the “true” believer has everlasting life now as a free gift, and on the last day he will receive everlasting life as a reward for work done in this life, not because he has earned the future reward of everlasting life, but because God sovereignly produces a life of good works in the life of the regenerate. Thus it is really God who sows to the Spirit for us and it is really God who earns this reward.

But doesn’t Paul say that we are the ones doing the sowing? Paul doesn’t say anything about God doing the sowing. Certainly we are the ones who might sow to the flesh. God would not and could not do that. We are also the ones called upon by Paul to sow to the Spirit. It is not God who will reap eternal life in the future as a reward for work done. It is us.

Notice how Gal 6:9, a verse Caneday does not discuss, wraps up the discussion. There Paul concludes, “And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.” Doesn’t that mean that the readers, and Paul himself (compare 1 Cor 9:27), might grow weary and might not reap this reward of everlasting life? That is surely Paul’s view. And it seems to be Caneday’s view, except that for Caneday the reward to be won is not a special fullness of everlasting life, but the actual ongoing possession of everlasting life. If so, then in Caneday’s view a person who has everlasting life now as a free gift might not have it in eternity because he grew weary and ceased doing good.

I welcome Caneday’s explanation of Gal 6:9 and also of 1 Cor 9:27. If the readers in the churches of Galatia and Paul himself already had everlasting life, and if the future experience of everlasting life is not a special fullness of life, but is the future possession of everlasting life in the Kingdom,  then this must be a warning about the loss of everlasting life and of failing to make it into the Kingdom due to failing to continue to work hard.

I also welcome Caneday’s explanation of John 6:35. Once a person partakes of the Bread of Life, he will never hunger. Once a person drinks of the water of life, he will never thirst. Those are two statements of eternal security. There are no works attached. No sowing the Spirit is required to keep this everlasting life.

And I welcome Caneday’s explanation of Eph 2:8-9. If Eph 2:8-9 tells us that everlasting life is not of works lest anyone should boast (compare Eph 2:5 to see that “saved” in 2:8 refers to “made alive” in 2:5), then does not Paul contradict himself in Gal 6:7-9, according to Caneday’s understanding?

I want to believe and apply what God actually meant. If Caneday can show me he is correct, then I will convert to his position. But he needs both to explain his view clearly and also defend it from Scripture. He also needs to give a statement like the one in the study Bible which he seems to reject. What is his statement about the present gift of life versus the future reward of life?

---

The following are Caneday’s footnotes:

[1] The New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 1235.

[2] Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, 87.

[3] Ibid, 87-88.

[4] See all of Paul’s uses of “eternal life” (Rom 2:7; 5:21; 6:22, 23; Gal. 6:8; 1 Tim. 1:16; 6:12; Titus 1:2; 3:7).

We have exciting news. We have hired a company that does videography. They will be filming this year’s conference using two professional cameras and equipment. All 12 of the keynote messages will be filmed, professionally edited, and put on DVDs.

Even more exciting is that we will be giving these DVDs to all conferees for just $5, the cost of Shipping and Handling*. In fact, any conferees who are local can come by our office as soon as the DVDs are available (probably 2-4 weeks after the conference) and we will simply give them a set.

And for those unable to attend the conference, they will be able to buy all the DVDs for just $25. Our aim here in giving away the DVDs and selling them below cost is to get the message out and to encourage people to attend the 2012 conference.

---

*CLARIFICATION 3/28/2011: Even if the DVDs are shipped with a larger order, it will still cost $5 for conference attendees. In addition to shipping costs, this will help us to defer the costs of production and packaging.

A. B. Caneday, “‘Lest after preaching to others I become disqualified’: Grace and Warning in Paul’s Gospel (1 Corinthians 9:23-17),” Testamentum Imperium, An International Theological Journal, Vol 1: 2005-2007: 1-32. View the article online here.

As a longer version of this review will likely be published in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society in the Spring, I will simply give a brief review here.

Exegetical Observations and Comments by Caneday Are Few

Concerning the loss of rewards view Caneday says, “Their exegetical comments tend to be brief, laconic, void of exegetical development, lacking in theological adeptness and even-handedness, but at the same time they tend to be conveyed in an ipso facto manner, with an air of authority and finality incommensurate with supporting evidence and argument” (p. 10). It strikes me that Caneday has criticized others for things of which he is guilty (Matt 7:3).

There are almost no exegetical comments by the author at all in the first 19 pages. I did find one place where Caneday makes a few grammatical observations to defend his view of the meaning sunkoinōnos autou (lit. sharer with it) in 1 Cor 9:23 (p. 18). His comments there are excellent. Unfortunately, such comments are exceeding rare in this paper.

Even starting on page 20 when he begins to defend his own view, there is very little in the way of exegesis. When he begins explaining and defending his own view, what we find are what could rightly be called statements “conveyed in an ipso facto manner, with an air of authority and finality incommensurate with supporting evidence and argument.” For example, he writes, “By “fellow partaker of the gospel” (sunkoinōnos autou), Paul means a fellow participant in the gospel with those whom he saved through the proclamation of the good news” (p. 20). And what does he believe that means? He concludes that paragraph with this sentence: “This continual need of faithfulness that he might be saved in the Day of Judgment is the burden of his reasoning throughout 1 Corinthians 9” (p. 21). In other words, in 1 Cor 9:23 by fellow partaker of the gospel Paul meant that through his work for Christ he hoped to avoid eternal condemnation. The issue for Caneday is not ruling with Christ and eternal rewards, but getting into the Kingdom and avoiding hell.

Now what proof does he cite to prove his understanding that in v 23 Paul was expressing his hope that he might finally receive the benefit of the gospel’s saving power? None. He does not cite other uses of koinōnos or koinōnia or koinōneō in Paul or elsewhere. He does not cite other uses of sunkoinōnos or sunkoinōneō in Paul or in the NT. He doesn’t discuss whether this entire expression, “fellow partaker of the gospel” occurs elsewhere.

Caneday doesn’t discuss the other 7 uses of adokimos in the NT. Nor does he comment on the 7 uses of dokimos, the antonym of adokimos, in the NT. It would seem that 2 Tim 2:15, for example, is very germane to the exegesis of 1 Cor 9:24-27.

I found no word studies in this paper. I found no comparison with other texts in which Paul speaks of approval or disapproval or of everlasting life (since Caneday believes that Paul is talking about that here).

His Rejection of Merit Theology for Rewards Doesn’t
Explain Away Merit Theology for Everlasting Life

Commenting on a note in The New Scofield Reference Bible, Caneday writes,

“The note conveys an ostensible tone of authority and finality without any tinge of awareness concerning the egregious doctrinal miscarriage it propounds: a Protestant doctrine of merit with an implied Protestant doctrine of purgatory” (p. 7).

I was struck by his expression “a Protestant doctrine of merit.” If he rejects merit for eternal rewards, then he is embracing merit for what he calls final salvation, is he not?

I don’t see how Caneday can get away from the idea that a prize (brabeion) is pay for work done.

Caneday states his view and does not deal with potential objections to his view. Part of exegesis is considering and handling possible objections to your own view. That he does not do that is surprising.

Why No Comparison with Other Texts in Paul Like Ephesians 2:8-9?

He wrote, “The gospel requires faithful endurance from us in order that we might lay hold of salvation in the age to come” (p. 3). How does that harmonize that our salvation is “not as a result of works, lest anyone should boast” (Eph 2:9)? Or how does that not contradict the Lord’s statement, “He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (John 6:35)?

Caneday also made this remarkable statement, “What Paul says is urgent not only for him but for all who would have a share in God’s saving power. Lest we assume that salvation is our regardless how we behave, the apostle appeals to us with his extended analogy, the athletic imagery of [1 Cor] 9:24-27” (p. 23). If our salvation (i.e., entrance into the Kingdom) depends on how we behave as Caneday says, then doesn’t that contract Eph 2:9 and Rom 4:4-5 and Titus 3:5? And doesn’t that contradict what the Lord Jesus taught as recorded in the Gospel of John? Where is behavior in John 3:16? Is not everlasting life for whoever believes in Him, not for whoever behaves in Him?

Caneday Rejects Eternal Security Apart from Perseverance

Caneday criticizes me for my suggestion that one who believes in Jesus is eternally secure regardless of whether he perseveres or not. He writes, “Wilkin embraces a radicalized version of eternal security that is void of and disconnected from perseverance in the faith” (p. 11, italics his).

Calvinism has been changing in academic circles. Now many Calvinists speak freely of perseverance in good works as a condition of escaping eternal condemnation, of final justification by works before God on the Last Day, and of final salvation as a prize won by the believers who is faithful. Anyone not blinded by modern scholarship would call such statements examples of works salvation. Like the emperor with no clothes, no matter how much Caneday says he doesn’t believe in works salvation, his protestations are only believable to the people already in the choir.

Already, But Not Yet, Is Quite Confusing in This Article

As with the book he co-authored, Caneday promotes salvation as something the believer already has and also as something the believer does not yet have.

Here is what he seems to be saying: the true believer already has everlasting life as a gift now and he will later win everlasting life as a prize for working for Christ until the end. The professing believer, on the other hand, doesn’t really have everlasting life as a free gift now, nor will he win it as a prize for perseverance works later. I indicate that he seems to be saying this, for Caneday is not clear. He never speaks of professing believers or of true believers. Only once in the article does he say that anyone who has eternal life now will assuredly win it on the Last Day. Aside from that one reference one would think he was saying that the present experience of eternal life does not guarantee winning the prize in the future.

Caneday believes that Paul was not sure of his eternal destiny when he wrote 1 Cor 9:24-27. Does that make any sense? Are we to believe that he wrote 13 NT epistles and yet did not know he was born again? It is hard to believe that the man who came to faith by meeting the risen Lord Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus did not know whether he was truly regenerate. When he was healing the sick and raising the dead was he unsure he would get into the Kingdom?

This view seems another way to be able both to preach and deny justification by faith alone, apart from works. Pastors and theologians will go to great lengths today to come up with a way of getting perseverance in good works into the equation of justification by faith alone, apart from works.

Conclusion

I believe that Caneday has good intentions. However, if he has departed from the Word of God on the condition of everlasting life, then he is leading many people astray on the single most important issue in Scripture. And he is missing out on the joy of being assured of his eternal destiny. I wish that joy for Caneday.

I was quite surprised when Holly in our office informed me that Ardel Caneday had responded to my blog, and indirectly, to one of my ETS papers.

One of the things Caneday says in his response is that he did not hear my paper arguing there is no final justification by works before God because he was tied up, but “Even if I had not been presenting, I would not have attended his paper. One has to make prudent selections at such conferences. After all, I guessed at what he would be saying, and it turns out that my surmising was correct, given what he has posted recently on his blog.”

I love to hear messages by men like Caneday and Schreiner. While I strongly disagree with them on the issue of assurance and the condition of everlasting life, and while I have a good idea what they will say, I find it well worth my time to listen. In that way I avoid misrepresenting them and I am reminded of how needed what we do at GES is.

Caneday suggests that I slandered him and Schreiner in my Dec 1 blog. He writes: “Nowhere have I ever suggested that someone who ‘is justified by faith might fail to persevere and hence would fail to achieve final justification by works.’ Nor has Tom Schreiner suggested this. To read our book, The Race Set Before Us, and to draw this conclusions is fundamentally to misread our argument.”

I gave two quotes from their book in my earlier blog post (Nov 24) to prove my point. Evidently Caneday did not read that earlier post that led to the one he read (Dec 1). If he had read the earlier post, it would have shown why I made the statement which he found slanderous.

Well, let’s look at the quotes I gave and see if they prove my point. Here is the first quote, from pages 46-47 of The Race Set Before Us by Schreiner and Caneday:

Believers must train diligently to receive the prize at the end of the race, and we can also be confident while running the race that we will win the prize. When Paul approached the end of his life, he reflected on his effort in the arena of life. He was confident that “the crown of righteousness” awaited him (2 Tim 4:8). The reason for his assurance is explained in the famous words “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith” (2 Tim 4:7). The crown of righteousness is not reserved for Paul alone; it belongs “to all who have longed for his [Christ’s] appearing” (v. 8). Two truths stand out in Paul’s assessment of his life. First, he was confident that he had lived in a way that pleased God. Paul knew that the crown of righteousness awaited him. Second, the reason for Paul’s assurance was his perseverance in running the race. He had not quit halfway into the race; he had not abandoned the faith.

The previous paragraph raises a question. What is the prize that believers are running to win? Some Christians are convinced that it cannot be eternal life. They understand the prize to be rewards, which are an additional gift beyond eternal life. They insist that believers already have eternal life, so there is no need to win eternal life as a prize on the last day. They also fear that any talk of winning the prize smacks of salvation by works.

There are five reasons why I believe that quote shows that they believe that someone who “is justified by faith might fail to persevere and hence would fail to achieve final justification by works.”

First, they say that “believers must train diligently to receive the prize [eternal life] at the end of the race.” That the prize is everlasting life is clearly stated throughout the book (see, for example, pp. 52, 65-67, 73, 80, 81, 83). Here is a typical statement: “We conclude by saying that the prize to be won is nothing other than eternal life itself, entrance into the heavenly kingdom and final redemption. Nothing less than our eternal inheritance is at stake, and thus the issue of perseverance is weighty indeed” (p. 86). Of course, that the prize is eternal life is evident later in the second paragraph I cited (see point 5 below).  Note they speak of “believers.” Is not a believer someone who has everlasting life as a present possession? If regeneration is by faith alone, how could someone who believes need to train diligently in order to receive everlasting life?

Second, they say, “When Paul approached the end of his life, he reflected on his effort in the arena of life. He was confident that ‘the crown of righteousness’ awaited him (2 Tim 4:8). The reason for his assurance is explained in the famous words ‘I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith’ (2 Tim 4:7). The crown of righteousness is not reserved for Paul alone; it belongs ‘to all who have longed for his [Christ’s] appearing’ (v. 8).” In my blog I referred to Paul’s comments in 1 Cor 9:24-27. Caneday even cited that. This quote is directly related. Clearly they believe Paul was regenerate. Yet they believe that Paul is an example of someone who did not know he was regenerate until the very end of his life after he had persevered to the end. If Paul only had assurance because he persevered—note the portion underlined above, then he surely didn’t have it before. Paul certainly indicated in 1 Cor 9:27 that he was not certain he would persevere. If he was not sure he would persevere, then Caneday and Schreiner must conclude he was not sure he would the prize of everlasting life.

Third, they say, “He had not quit halfway into the race; he had not abandoned the faith.” Their point is that if he had quit, if he had abandoned the faith, then he would not have received the prize of everlasting life. Is there any other way to read that?

Fourth, they fail to go on in 2 Timothy 4 to verse 10. There Paul gives an example of someone who had not finished the race, but who had abandoned it. The Apostle Paul had previously mentioned Demas in his epistles as one of his faithful assistants (Col 4:14; Phlm 23-24). When he gets to verse 10, Paul says that “Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica.” Demas quit. He stopped longing for Christ’s appearing and instead loved this present world. Would not Caneday and Schreiner’s statement that “the crown of righteousness…belongs to all who longed for his [Christ’s] appearing” apply to Demas? And would not the need to not quit the race apply to Demas? Yet Paul previously listed Demas not only as a believer, but one of his faithful fellow laborers!

Fifth, Caneday and Schreiner themselves recognize that their words sound like works salvation. Note the words:

“The previous paragraph raises a question. What is the prize that believers are running to win? Some Christians are convinced that it cannot be eternal life. They understand the prize to be rewards, which are an additional gift beyond eternal life. They insist that believers already have eternal life, so there is no need to win eternal life as a prize on the last day. They also fear that any talk of winning the prize smacks of salvation by works.”

Caneday and Schreiner clearly recognize that what they are saying “smacks of salvation by works.” Well if they admit what they are saying “smacks of salvation by works,” then why are they surprised when I write, “Their thesis is simple: a person who is initially justified by faith alone, apart from works, must persevere in faith and good works until death in order to obtain final justification and entrance into Jesus’ Kingdom”?

Now for the second quote I cited. On page 79 of The Race Set Before Us Caneday and Schreiner write:

“Righteousness should be included in the already-but-not-yet tension that informs New Testament soteriology. Believers are righteous now, yet they still await the gift of righteousness that will be theirs on the day of redemption. We should not use the texts that speak of righteousness being ours now to nullify those that refer to righteousness as a future reality.”

First, when you put this together with the first quote I cited, it is clear that the believer who needs to persevere (to receive everlasting life for work done) is a person who is already justified now.

Second, note that we must not allow “texts that speak of righteousness being ours now” to subvert texts “that refer to righteousness as a future reality.” What can that mean but that we must not allow texts on justification by faith alone to lull us into a false assurance that we will finally be justified by our works? They see warning passages dealing with the need to persevere to be warnings to believers about eternal condemnation.

Third, if justification is “already-but-not-yet” (and it most certainly is not; justification is once and for all; there is no “not yet” in terms of justification) then justification could only be secure if all who are believers are guaranteed to receive “righteousness as a future reality.” If that is not a guarantee, if believers are warned that they may not win the prize of righteousness/everlasting life, then this “already-but-not-yet tension” is shorthand for the fact that believers need to persevere to the end if they wish to win the prize of everlasting life/righteousness.

I have a direct question for Caneday and Schreiner: Are you sure that you will persevere to the end of your life? Or, to put it in your words, Are you sure that you will win the prize of everlasting life?

Like the unnamed Calvinist pastor and seminary professor, they surely will admit they are not sure they will persevere and thus they are not sure that they will win the prize of everlasting life.

By the way, I freely admit that I am not sure I will persevere to the end of my life. But I am sure of my eternal destiny because my assurance is unrelated to my perseverance. However, since for Caneday and Shreiner their assurance is based on their hoped-for but uncertain future perseverance, they can’t know where they will spend eternity until they die.

Of course, they might surprise me. They might say that they are sure apart from their perseverance. If so, they have contradicted their book. Or they might say that they are sure that they will persevere. If so, then they contradicted both their book and the clear teaching of the Word of God that we cannot be sure that we will persevere (e.g., 1 Cor 9:27[1]; 2 Tim 2:12).

This for me is not an academic question. This is a practical, ministry, life and death question. Hopefully at one time both Caneday and Schreiner believed that simply by faith in the Lord Jesus they had everlasting life that could never be lost regardless of whatever they did or did not do in the future. If so, they have everlasting life in spite of the fact that they no longer believe that. It is good news that once a person has everlasting life, he is secure forever. I’d like for them to have assurance of their eternal destiny, for such assurance is a powerful motivation to persevere to the end so that we might please our Lord and hear “Well done, good servant” (Luke 19:17). Besides, these men—one a professor of New Testament at a major seminary and the other a professor of New Testament at a major Christian liberal arts college—are training the next generation of pastors, theologians, and missionaries. Are they training men and women to share the promise of everlasting life to all who simply believe in the Lord Jesus, apart from any works before or after the new birth, even apart from perseverance? Or are they training people to share that God has a prize of everlasting life to be won by any believer in Jesus Christ who perseveres to the end of his life in faith and good works?

---

[1] It should be noted that Caneday rejects my suggestion that 1 Cor 9:27 shows we cannot be sure we will persevere. He does so by giving a link to a 32-page article he wrote on 1 Cor 9:23-27. I highly recommend you read it. I will post a review of that article in the near future. Click here to go to his article.

Adrian Rogers
Love Worth Finding
December 8, 2010
The Mystery of the Mustard Seed and the Devil’s Dirty Birds

At the close of today’s message the late Dr. Adrian Rogers (Nov 15, 2005) invited anyone in his audience who wanted to be born again to pray with him a salvation prayer. I heard this live today. When I heard it, I was struck not only by the fact that the prayer is filled with promises to serve and love God, but also how complicated this prayer is. I would think that anyone who prayed this prayer, or anyone who heard it and thought this was the way to be born again, would wonder if he was truly born again.

While I only heard the last part of the message (I came in near the end of the message after having blood drawn for a physical), I did hear him challenge the audience with the fact that they might not be real believers. They might simply be the tares in the parable of the wheat and the tares.

So how do they make sure they are not false believers? Evidently it is by sincerely praying this prayer and then following it up by persevering in obedience, since praying the prayer but not actually yielding oneself to Christ’s Lordship would not result in true conversion, according to what Dr. Rodgers had said earlier.

All of this is sad since I had the impression that Dr. Rogers was mildly in the Free Grace camp. Maybe he was. But this was not one of his better evangelistic closes in terms of faith in Christ being the sole condition of eternal life.

Here is Dr. Roger’s closing prayer, including his lead in to it:

Would you like to be saved?…The Bible says, “Examine yourself whether you be  in the faith…Why don’t you get it settled it right now? Why don’t you pray this prayer after me and ask Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Savior? Would you like to be saved? Friend, please pray this prayer, right now. Don’t let the Devil’s dirty birds steal away the seed. Right now pray this prayer:

Dear God, I know that You love me. And  I know that You want to save me. Thank You Lord for letting me be here to hear this message. I am a sinner. My sin deserves judgment, but I need mercy. I want to be saved. I want to be forgiven. I want to be cleansed. Jesus,  I believe You’re the Son of God. I believe You paid for my sin with Your blood on the cross. I believe God raised You from the dead. I now receive You and trust You as my Lord and Savior. Come into my heart. Forgive my sin. Cleanse me. Save me, Lord Jesus. I receive it by faith like a little child. You’re now my Lord and my Savior and my God and my Friend and from this moment on, by Your strength and for Your glory, I will follow You. I will love You. I will serve You. You are my Master, my Lord, my Savior, and my God. And I will not be ashamed of You because You died for me. In your name I pray, Amen.