Open Letter To Dr. Charles Swindoll

As grievous as this Reformation revisionism is in my limited understanding, what follows is entirely scandalous.

When the eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century revival spread across Great Britain and into America, preached fervently by John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and a handful of other risk-taking spokesmen for God, it was again grace that led the way. And again there was strong resistance from those who frowned upon their message of freedom in Christ. Interestingly, that sweeping movement came to be known as "The Great Awakening." What I am sensing these days is yet another awakening in the genre of those history-making movements. Perhaps it is best defined as "The Grace Awakening," a message whose time has come.²⁵

Dr. Swindoll, in what way is your grace awakening in the "genre" of John Wesley's awakening? The issues you mention in the quote above are: (1) "grace that led the way"; and (2) "their message of freedom in Christ." Though you plainly align yourself with Wesley, as you did with Luther, surely both of us know that Wesley did not understand grace and gospel liberty as you do. What! Did John Wesley teach that an adulterous Christian would go to heaven "regardless" of his lifestyle? Did he teach that obedience and faithfulness were optional to salvation? To answer these questions with a "No!" would be a gross understatement. Dear sir, John Wesley spent his life confronting and confounding those who taught and understood grace as you do.

Here is but a sample from this risk-taking spokesman for God:

... none can be a real Christian, without carefully abstaining from all evil, using every means of grace at every opportunity, and doing all possible good to all men.²⁶

I testify unto you, that if you still continue in sin, Christ shall profit you nothing; that Christ is no Saviour to you, unless he saves you from your sins; and that unless it purify your heart, faith shall profit you nothing. O when will ye understand, that to oppose either inward or outward holiness, under colour of exalting Christ, is directly to act the part of Judas.²⁷

Do ye work; else your faith is vain. For "wilt thou know, O vain," O empty man, "that faith without works is dead?" Wilt thou know that "though I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing?"²⁸

Your notion, namely that it is heresy and a lie to teach that works or fruit must accompany sincere faith, baffles me, kind sir. Mr. Wesley, a man whom you deem "a risk-taking spokesman for God," in no uncertain terms boldly preaches this heresy and lie. Again, I ask, sir, in what way is your understanding of grace and faith in the genre of Mr. Wesley's? Dr. Swindoll, you would be hard pressed to find one sermon from Wesley wherein he doesn't, in some way, condemn your understanding of faith alone as heresy and a lie. Still, you align yourself with him, deceive the uninformed reader, and pretend that you and Wesley contend for the same things. Gentle sir, how is this not dishonest? I will not take the time to do so, but it may be easily proven that neither George Whitefield nor Jonathan Edwards shared your notions either.

Martin Luther and John Wesley aside, was John the Baptist proclaiming heresy when he declared "every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire" (Matt 3:10) ? Was Jesus lying and disseminating heresy when He said:

Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt 7:19-21)

You say that a professing Christian will enter the kingdom of heaven "regardless" of whether or not he does the will of God or even though he may walk away from God, but Jesus plainly teaches that only those who do the will of God will actually enter the kingdom of heaven. Whom should the interested reader believe, Dr. Swindoll, you or Jesus? In light of this, can you understand my perplexity over your teaching? Dear sir, what you call a different gospel, heresy, and a lie, the scriptures manifestly present as truth. Again, is this heresy and lie not precisely what James taught?

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? . . . Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. ( James 2:14, 17)

James' question, "Can faith save him?" is a rhetorical question. The answer is an obvious, "No!" Yet you clearly teach that dead faith can save, and this under the guise of an accurate understanding of grace. Gentle sir, be patient with me, do you not tremble by answering, "Yes!" to the question of whether or not a dead faith can save? James likens dead faith to the faith of demons ( James 2:19) ! Far from qualifying one for the kingdom of God, faith without works merely qualifies one to be a demon!

The Greek word translated save in James 2:14 is the word sozo, and it is the same word used in these passages:

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matt 1:21)

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)

For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. (Luke 19:10)

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Rom 5:10)

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. (1 Cor 1:21)

For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish. (2 Cor 2:15)

This list could go on for pages. In fact, the Greek word sozo is used 109 times in the New Testament and when used concerning salvation it is always used to denote justification before God. James, like Luther, Wesley, and Jesus, clearly teaches that faith without works will not justify! Dr. R.A. Torrey, whose name is memorialized at the present-day Moody campus, rightly taught, "the faith that one says he has, but which does not manifest itself in action along the line of the faith professed, will not justify. The faith that justifies is the real faith that leads to action accordant with the truth professed."²⁹

I often wonder what Dr. Torrey would think if he knew that Moody, the name you can trust, promoted the faith of demons as salvific. Speaking of dead faith, the word dead, as used by James in James 2:17, "faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself," is the Greek word nekros. Inspiration uses this word to describe the spiritual state of the lost:

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved.) (Eph 2:5)

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses. (Col 2:13)

Faith that is alone, as James put it, or faith without works cannot save anymore than the spiritually dead can save themselves apart from Christ. Faith without works is as dead as the unregenerate, spiritually darkened sinner. Luther was right when he said, "faith and works cannot be separated," and James was not exaggerating when he wrote, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" ( James 2:26) . On this topic, John Wesley, the risk-taking spokesman for God wrote:

We are justified without the works of the law, as any previous condition of justification; but they are an immediate fruit of that faith whereby we are justified. So that if good works do not follow our faith, even all inward and outward holiness, it is plain our faith is worth nothing; we are yet in our sins.³⁰

I must admit, dear sir, it is with great apprehension that I write these pages. Such hesitation is founded on the conviction that to question your understanding of grace is to surely win me some abusive label. I hope I am wrong in this. Please, allow me to explain. In the first chapter of your 311 -page book, The Grace Awakening , you wrote, "grace was meant to be received and lived out." Indeed it is, an excellent point Dr. Swindoll. However, the full quote reads:

Grace was meant to be received and lived out to the fullest, not dissected and analyzed by those who would rather argue than eat. Enough of this! It's time for grace to be awakened and released, not denied . . . to be enjoyed and freely given, not debated.³¹

Now, I'm not sure that I understand this. I must ask, gentle sir, why are those who dissect and analyze doctrine caricatured as "those who would rather argue than eat"? Some things are worth arguing over, are they not? Whose version of "grace" is to be received, awakened and released? Are Christians to blindly accept your views on grace without comparing them to scripture? How are we to know if your view is the correct version unless we analyze it? Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems that if more in the professing church did this, error would not be so rampant. Surely, you are quite familiar with Jude 4 :

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Here, Jude warns us that there are those deceived teachers who turn the grace of God into lasciviousness, or a license to sin. How are we to know who these teachers are unless we dissect their doctrine? What if these teachers, having heard Jude's warning, proclaimed to the church, "Enough of this! It's time for grace to be awakened and released, not denied . . . to be enjoyed and freely given, not debated." Would you encourage first century believers to blindly receive such advice, Dr. Swindoll? Surely you would not. Perhaps twenty first century believers ought not receive such advice either.

With all due respect, sir, was Jude someone who would rather argue than eat? Was Paul when he confronted Peter to the face? How about John in his second epistle when he dissected, analyzed and exposed the faulty Christology of "deceivers," was he one who would rather argue than eat? The biblical record teems with examples of those inspired writers who dissected, analyzed, and debated doctrine. Who knows where you and I would be now, Dr. Swindoll, if Martin Luther had not dissected the Catholic understanding of grace. Surely, you see my point.

I do not want to belabor the point, but you do lay great emphasis on this idea that we should simply "embrace grace," your version of grace, that is. As you know, your quotation noted above is not the end of your remarks in this regard, please consider the following, also from page four of The Grace Awakening. Speaking of "grace," you wrote:

Deny it or debate it and we kill it.

Those who aren't comfortable denying it have decided to debate it.

This troubles me, Dr. Swindoll. How is it that you issue hypocritical, blanket insults such as these without your own conscience screaming, "Contradiction!"? Unless I am greatly deceived, sir, you blatantly accuse those who scrutinize and define the doctrine of grace as closet grace-deniers and equate reasoning about grace with killing it! I can't help but wonder if the grace-changers whom Jude confronted did the same. Dear sir, the Bereans were applauded for testing doctrine.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

In the same way, Paul taught the Thessalonians to "prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess 5:21). The Greek word Paul used for prove in this context means to test or examine . Furthermore, Paul taught the Philippians that this testing and discernment are actually manifestations of love.

And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; That ye may approve [Greek - dokimazo: to test, to examine] things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ. (Phil 1:9-10)

I hope the word "hypocritical," as used earlier, was not offensive (I did hesitate to use this word), but I know of no gentler term to summarize your comments. You plainly criticize dissecting, debating, and analyzing grace, yet you have spent 311 pages doing the same. The Grace Awakening is a book analyzing and defining grace, isn't it? Unquestionably, it is. Your own words are that The Grace Awakening is "a book emphasizing the full extent of grace."³²

Why have you written this book analyzing grace? Is it not to confront and expose perceived errors, whether actual or imagined? Should not others enjoy this same liberty and freedom without being insulted or wrongly accused? Dear sir, I am amazed. It is as if you desire the entire universe to naively take up The Grace Awakening with all of its debatable teachings as shown earlier, and lay aside our Bibles.

Is not allowing others the same liberties that you enjoy simply being gracious? Indeed it is. You rightly encourage your readers to "refuse all temptations to be a brother basher or a sister smasher."³³ Again, you say, "grace means I will not force or manipulate or judge or attempt to control you."³⁴ Nonetheless, you refer to those who disagree with your questionable understanding of grace as tools of Satan, enemies of the Christian soul, and even grace haters.³⁵ Dear sir, correct me if I err, but name-calling and ad hominem, emotional attacks seem contrary to your own definitions of grace.

You rightly teach that if "I cultivate a judgmental attitude towards those who may not agree or cooperate with my plan"³⁶ that I am a "grace killer" and "un-Christlike," yet you clearly do not seem to show the same tolerance for those who disagree with you. For instance, you rail against "intolerance" and "judgmental spirits."³⁷ You decry the evils of "bullying tactics" and "narrowmindedness." Yet in two and one-half pages of your introduction alone you refer to those who disagree with your understanding of grace as "people who do not want others to be free," "those who have appointed themselves our judge and jury," "grace killers [twice]," "organized religious bureaucrats," "legalists," "religious legalists," "religious kill-joys," and "religious kings of the mountain"!³⁸

Your doctrine, as noted herein, greatly puzzles me, Dr. Swindoll. You wrote a book on grace and Christian liberty, but you criticize others for scrutinizing doctrine as you have done. You condemn intolerance and judgmentalism, yet all throughout your writing you slander, defame, and brand with the harshest of disparaging epithets those who disagree with your very debatable teachings. Kind sir, help your student understand these apparent incongruities.

Please consider the rebuke of Jesus addressed to the church in Thyatira in this regard:

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. (Rev 2:20)

Unless I am mistaken, Dr. Swindoll, our Lord is upset with His people because they did not dissect, analyze, and debate Jezebel's version of grace. So far is Christ from this embrace grace idea, that He says, I have this "against you"! The word sufferest, says Thayer, carries the meaning, "to permit, allow, not to hinder." By not dissecting, analyzing and debating, the Lord's people merely tolerated bad teaching, and thereby earned a place in the eternal record- the Scriptures! This they did to warn future generations like ours to dissect and debate grace!

Yes, Jezebel taught a version of cheap grace and thereby "seduced" God's people into sin. She led them astray and caused them to wander from the truth, which the Greek word planao (plan · ah' . o), the word rendered seduce, clearly indicates. Certainly, she didn't do this intentionally - no false teacher considers himself as such. Who knows what Jezebel said to cause this sin in the people of God. Most commentators feel that her teaching was similar to the doctrine of Balaam, mentioned only a few verses earlier, which was to make Christian liberty a plea for an antichristian license. Jezebel, whether an actual person or a doctrinal system, taught a false version of grace. Her followers thought it was safe to sin as there were no eternal consequences.

It doesn't take much to get the people of God into sin, Dr. Swindoll. Satan did this millennia before the seductive doctrines of Balaam and Jezebel even existed. All he had to do was to tell Eve that she could sin with impunity. Think of it, Satan didn't even use the word "regardless" in his seduction. These doctrines condemned by our Lord are the same as those condemned by Jude: turning the grace of God into a license for sin. They are also the same false doctrines addressed in James 2 and in 1 John 3 :

Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (1 John 3:7, 8)

Dr. Swindoll, why would John warn his hearers in this manner? If I said to you, "Let no one deceive you, whoever wears plaid pants is a golfer," why would you think I said this? Obviously, you would conclude that it was because there were those telling you otherwise. So it is with the apostle. He makes this warning because there were false teachers telling the people that those who practice sin were of God or Christians. Perhaps these teachers said something like:

Carnality occurs when a believer deliberately operates in the strength of his or her own will . . . the promptings of God's spirit are ignored as disobedience becomes a lifestyle . . . And that is exactly where some Christians find themselves today.³⁹

The carnal Christian resembles non-Christians. If there is one truth I would love to be able to convince the non-Christians of it's that truth aside from the gospel.⁴⁰

I mean no sarcasm or disrespect by this, Dr. Swindoll. I honestly see no other reason why John would issue such a statement. "Let no man deceive you . . . He that committeth sin is of the devil," simply corrects the false statement, "He that commiteth sin is of God," or the more contemporary, "He that practices sin is a carnal Christian." Correct me if I err, but it seems I have good biblical grounds to answer such a statement with, "Let no man deceive you!"

Again, you present as an accurate understanding of grace, an understanding deserving of publication, that it is another gospel, heresy, and a lie to insist that works or fruit must accompany sincere faith. And in this version of grace, you present Martin Luther and John Wesley as your doctrinal forerunners. Dear Dr. Swindoll, one of us is greatly deceived. I do not see how your teaching and that of Luther and especially Wesley can be reconciled, but I am eager and willing to be taught. Please sir, show your servant his error.

Speaking of soteriology or salvation doctrine, D.L. Moody said, "It is the ABCs of God's alphabet. If a man is unsound on regeneration, he is unsound on everything. That is really the foundation-stone; and he must get the foundation right."⁴¹ Kind sir, I desire, above all else, to get the foundation right. In my plainness of speech, I pray I have not disrespected your person or misrepresented your views. I simply desire to rightly divide the word of truth. I humbly request an informal discussion of the issues contained herein. I anxiously await contact from you, kind and venerable sir.

Your student,
Daniel LaLond Jr.
December 2003