It has been my privilege to have known Dr. Lance Ketchum since 2002. He is well known in IFB circles through his ministry of Evangelism, Revival, Church Planting. He is a prolific writer on many important theological discussions.
Since the release of my book In Defense of the Gospel we have discussed some of the errors in the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel. Dr. Ketchum also shares our grave concern over the new and disturbing reductionist soteriology coming from Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society.
Dr. Ketchum and I have communicated about the errors and dangers of REDEFINED Free Grace theology’s Crossless gospel. Dr. Ketchum has been supportive of the efforts men in the Free Grace movement have made to alert believers about the egregious errors of the Crossless gospel.
This week Dr. Ketchum took an active role in and joined the open discussion and debate over the Crossless gospel. He has posted an article, portions of which you may find helpful. Here is a sample,
“Why spend so much time on Soteriological Expansionism when the subject of this article is the Evolution of Soteriological Reductionism? The reason I do so is because God has given us a great deal of Scripture to insure that the purity of the gospel is protected. In giving these various inspired texts dealing with perversions adding to the gospel, the details and specifics of the gospel become very defined and definite.Please read The Evolution of Soteriological Reductionism for a historical perspective of how men may have come to arrive at a Crossless gospel.
By the late 1600’s liberal theological thought began a steady slide into Apostasy when a reductionist philosophical notion known as Pluralism came into religious circles. Pluralism is the teaching that says it really does not matter what you believe about God, as long as you believe in God or a god in some form.” (italics and bold his)
LM
Dr. Ketchum's website is packed with treasures and resources for students and teachers. I have enjoyed his articles and resources.
ReplyDeleteLiam:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the follow-up from Dr. Ketchum's article and web site.
LM
Dear Guests:
ReplyDeleteI trust my guests will appreciate Dr. Ketchum’s article.
We must be careful to define our terms. I want my guests to understand that my personal belief is that lost men are not born again because, or the result of their having prayed a prayer.
In my personal evangelism experience any prayer by a man I have witnessed to, expressing faith and belief in the Lord, is the result of his having believed the Gospel and through belief he has been born again.
One section of the article addresses “Only Believism.” That is a term that I am not personally comfortable with. My concern is that it could be taken to mean that “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ… (Acts 16:31; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:9), is insufficient to result in salvation.
At his blog I will ask Dr. Ketchum for clarification of the “Only Believism” portion of his article.
LM
Brother Lou,
ReplyDeleteThe issue of Only Believism is what is involved in response to the gospel message that is referred to as believing.
From an inductive hermeneutical methodology, we understand that God requires repentance from sin and “dead works.” We find in Romans 10:9-13, three necessary responses to the gospel; confess Christ as Jehovah, believe with the heart and, call upon the Name of Jesus to save. John 1:11-12 speaks of the necessity of receiving Christ.
Reductionists would reduce all of these aspects of believing down to merely believing (whatever the ambiguity of that might mean without the definitive nature of these responses to define believing).
I will be posting addition articles of some depth on these issues in the near future on my blog.
Brother Ketchum:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification. I'll look forward to your upcoming articles.
By the way, your book arrived yesterday. It is my next-to-read. Thanks, for sending it.
Yours in Him,
Lou
Dr. Ketchum's "clarification" only clarifies that he is teaching a disguised form of works-based Lordship salvation. He has actually perverted the gospel and certainly comes under the condemnation of Gal. 1:6-9. If the Lord gives me the opportunity, I will look forward to responding in more detail. I hope he will not spread this false teaching here or anywhere else.
ReplyDeleteTo start with, it is appalling that this so-called evangelical would categorize "only believism" as a false gospel. There are over 80 passages in Scripture that predicate salvation or eternal life upon the only condition of "believing" the gospel or believing in Christ. There are over 120 passages which implicitly make the same claim. In that past, I have posted the verses I've identified as explicit and implicit in predicating salvation upon the sole condition of faith, i.e., "only believism".
Dr. Ketchum asserts:
We find in Romans 10:9-13, three necessary responses to the gospel; confess Christ as Jehovah, believe with the heart and, call upon the Name of Jesus to save. John 1:11-12 speaks of the necessity of receiving Christ. Reductionists would reduce all of these aspects of believing down to merely believing (whatever the ambiguity of that might mean without the definitive nature of these responses to define believing).
Dr. Ketchum asserts there are at least five "necessary responses" in order to be saved -- 1) publicly confess Christ, 2) believe with the heart, 3) call upon the name of Jesus, 4) receive Jesus, and 5) repent of sins.
In Dr. Ketchum's article, he has already clarified:
In other words, repenting of sin (Luke 24:7) and “dead works”(Heb. 6:1), understanding (Matt. 13:23) and believing the objective facts of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:37; 16:31-32), publicly confessing one’s belief that Jesus is Jehovah (Rom. 10:9; “LORD,” see Joel 2:32), calling on the Name of Jesus to save (Rom. 10:13), and receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (John 1:12) are all aspects of a proper response to the gospel in a genuine salvation decision and should be explained in the presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. True Evangelism involves both the explanation of the objective facts of the gospel and the objective required responses to the gospel in order for true, supernatural “conversion” to be created. This is exemplified in Paul’s dealing with the Philippian jailer and his household.
Dr. Ketchum criticizes anyone who would claim:
These various responses are not individual acts and are all merely aspects of believing that need not be expressed individually.
In order words, for the lost to be saved, according to Dr. Ketchum, those five "acts" (most of which are "works"), must be expressed individually. According to Dr. Ketchum, then, and individual who has only "believed" in Christ remains unsaved until he has 2) publicly confessed Christ, 3) repented of sins, 4) called upon the name of Christ, 5) does some unknown act (other than "believing") to receive Jesus and the Holy Spirt.
He further stated:
"[A]ll aspects of a proper response to the gospel in a genuine salvation decision and should be explained in the presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. True Evangelism involves both the explanation of the objective facts of the gospel and the objective required responses to the gospel in order for true,supernatural “conversion” to be created.
In other words, in order to do "true evangelism", we cannot tell the lost that Christ's work is sufficient--only believe in Him! Instead, in order to generate true, supernatural conversion, we must tell the lost to repent of his sins, publicly confess Christ, call on Christ, receive Christ and the Holy Spirit, in order to be saved.
Dr. Ketchum is chrystal clear that the response to the gospel for salvation cannot be stated or summarized with the word "believe".
He states:
Reductionists would reduce all of these aspects of believing down to merely believing (whatever the ambiguity of that might mean without the definitive nature of these responses to define believing).
What an insult to Scripture! What an insult to the Gospel of John which states the response for salvation with the word "believe" 20+ times (and who also distinguishes between believing in Christ and confessing Christ publicly; see John 12:42; 19:38-39)! What an insult to the Apostle Paul who states the required response for salvation with the word "believe" 30+ times!!
Dr. Ketchum is not clarifying Scripture, he is contradicting it. Consider his explanation of Acts 16:31:
Acts 16: 30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house” (Acts 16:27-34).
Only Believists would stop at Acts 16:31. However, verse 32 clearly states, “And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” In other words, there was a thorough explanation of the gospel, the necessary responses to the gospel involved in believing, and even the expectations of a believer once that believer trusted Christ for salvation. We know this latter fact because the Philippian jailer and “all that were in his house” believed and were “baptized.” Aquila and Priscilla did this same thing with a man name Apollas (Acts 18:24-28).
But is Dr. Ketchum clarifying Acts 16:31 or contradicting it?? In 16:31, Paul and Silas directly told the Philippian jailor that if he simply believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, he would be saved. But Dr. Ketchum claims that verse 32, by stating "they spake unto him the word of the Lord", teaches that they gave him more conditions beyond believing in Christ in order to be saved! Well, if that is true--if it actually required 5 individual responses in order to be saved, then Acts 16:31 simply is untrue! Furthermore, Dr. Ketchum implies that in order to do true evangelism, Paul and Silas also explained the "expectations of a believer" as part of their evangelism and that included explaining the "expectation" that they would be baptized. So, it seems Dr. Ketchum would also require 6) the unbeliever promise to be baptized, and 7) agree to the future expectations of Him once he believes in Christ.
A much more reasonable and harmonious explanation of verse 32 is that by speaking the word of the Lord unto the Philippian jailor, Paul and Silas explained the objective truths of the gospel so that he could believe in Christ! This verse simply does not imply--as Dr. Ketchum does--that they added more conditions beyond believing in order to be saved. And if they did, Acts 16:31 is simply untrue.
I would be happy, Lord willing, to address Dr. Ketchum's various proof texts like Luke 24:47, Romans 10:9-13, John 1:12 ect. if this discussion continues and anyone desires.
Therefore, by your post, I take it you are an Only Believist!
ReplyDeleteI think you have misrepresented much of what I said.
Let me ask you a few questions. First, who are you? I normally do not respond to anonymous posters. Tell us who you are, where you live, and where you attend Church, etc. (Do not bother answering the rest of the questions if you do not want to answer this one.)
Do you believe repentance from/of sin is a prerequisite to believing?
Do you believe repentance from/of “dead works” is a prerequisite to believing?
Do you believe that one receives Christ by believing or by calling on the Name of Jesus to save?
Do you believe the word “and” is not in Romans 10:9-10?
Do you believe calling on the Name of the Lord (Romans 10:13) is the same as believing?
Using a complimentary hermeneutic, when a person believes in “the Lord Jesus Christ,” what exact beliefs do those word convey?
Are you a Monergist?
Do you believe in a decisional Christianity to become a Christian and to live the Christian life once a person is saved?
You accuse me of “proof texts.” I do not practice a “proof text” theology. I practice Biblical exegesis according to an inductive methodology (“line upon line and precept upon precept”). Do you practice a “proof text” theology?
Dr. Ketchum:
ReplyDeleteAs an FYI courtesy, Greg has been a major contributor at my blog. If you go to the Labels section and click on the following subjects you will see that he wrote those articles and/or series of articles.
False Paradigms
Christ Under Siege
Technical Meaning of the Gospel
Lou
Greg:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your response to Dr. Ketchum. I do not believe you "misrepresented much of what [he] said" (as he claims), because after reading Dr. Ketchum's material I came away with the same understanding of it as yourself! Thus, if we have misunderstood and/or misrepresented Dr. Ketchum's statements it is only because he doesn't really believe what he has written. After I became aware of Dr. Ketchum's teachings I was forced to remove the links to his websites from my blogroll. Greg, thank you for your Scriptural response to Dr. Ketchum's teachings.
JP