Debate: Is Repentance of Sin part of the Gospel? (Foskey vs Tommy McMurtry)

Debate Format and Moderator’s Introduction

All right, here we go. Welcome to Standing for Truth. My name is Donnie Badinski, and I am your host and moderator for this afternoon's Soteriology Showdown between pastors Tommy McMurtry and Keith Foskey.

I am thrilled to have these pastors here for this important debate on, as we were joking pre-show, pride and predestination. So I think this is gonna be a lot of fun as we engage the specific question this afternoon, is repentance of sin part of the gospel?

Keith takes the affirmative and Tommy takes the negative for today's debate. Now, what exactly is meant by repentance of sin will be discussed in this debate. I am looking forward to an engaging, a comprehensive, and a thought-provoking exchange on this, in many ways, controversial topic.

And so, gentlemen, before we get into opening statements and the debate itself, let's get acquainted, break the ice a little bit, and get to know you gentlemen. And so, Pastor Keith Foskey, let's start with you.

Last time you were here was for your Great Millennium debate with Lucas Curcio, excellent debate on an End Times-related topic. And so, Keith, how have you been since then? And also, if you could, tell us a little bit about yourself and your ministry.

Well, thank you, Donnie, for having me on the show, and I'm honored to be here, and I appreciate Brother Tommy being on and having this opportunity to have the conversation. I am pastor of Sovereign Grace Family Church in Jacksonville, Florida.

As you said, I've been on the show before, so some folks may know me. I also have a YouTube channel where I do both serious and comedic videos, and I am somewhat of a humorist. I write satire, I also do stand-up comedy, so that's just a part of what I do.

Awesome, well, I appreciate that, Pastor Keith. For those who wanna see more from you, if they like what they're hearing this afternoon, they can go into the description box and find a link to your channel where they can find a lot of the shorts and comedy-related videos that I definitely highly recommend they check out.

So, Pastor Keith, appreciate that intro, and Pastor Tommy McMurtry, great to have you back as well. If I remember correctly, the last time you were here was for your full preterism debate with Dr. William Bell, so that was a fantastic debate as well.

Another End Times-related topic, I recommend people check that out. And so, Pastor Tommy, how have you been since then? And also tell us a little bit about yourself and your church.

Yeah, I've been doing great, Lord's blessing, and excited to be a part of this debate tonight. I love this subject. I pastor Liberty Baptist Church in Rock Falls, Illinois. We're getting ready to celebrate our 13th anniversary in less than two weeks, and we are an aggressively soul-winning church, and so this doctrine is something that I care about a lot.

I love to talk about it, and I'm excited to be having this conversation with Pastor Foskey. He's somebody I've had on my podcast before. I've been on his. And even though we don't agree on everything, I do appreciate his attitude on these things, his openness to conversation, and I definitely appreciate his humor.

I enjoy a lot of his content, and so I am very excited to have this conversation, and I think it's gonna be a productive one, and so I'm looking forward to it.

Amen, I appreciate that. I agree, I think this is gonna be a productive exchange between two true professionals. You're definitely no strangers to debates, nor strangers to the topic of salvation. I know you have both preached on it and discussed it in quite a lot of detail, so pastors, appreciate those introductions.

For those, again, in the audience that wanna see more from Pastor Keith Foskey and Pastor Tommy McMurtry, do check the description box of this video for links to their channels. Okay, let's get right into it.

I'll briefly go over the format for the audience's sake, and so format-wise, we're gonna be having 12-minute opening statements. Again, the resolution or question for tonight is is repentance of sin a part of the gospel?

And so Keith is taking the affirmative, so he'll have the first opening statement, again, 12 minutes. Then we'll have an eight-minute uninterrupted rebuttal where our guests can engage each other's points and arguments put forth in the opening statements.

Then we'll have an open discussion. So open discussion's gonna be 50 minutes, and rather than a real strict cross-exam, what we're gonna do is make it a little more free-flowing and organic where our debaters this afternoon can discuss the topic at hand.

And then we'll have five-minute closing statements where the debaters can wrap up their thoughts and points. And then this is where we get you guys in the audience involved. We'll have roughly a 30-minute audience Q &A.

So please, if you do have a question on the topic of salvation or the topic of repentance of sin in relation to the gospel, please make sure you're tagging me either at Donnie or at StandingForTruth, and then let me know who the question's for, Keith or Tommy.

And so with that, Keith, we're gonna hand it over to you. And whenever you're ready, please let me know. I'll start your timer, and you have 12 minutes.

Thank you, I'm ready. So the question before us this evening is, is repentance of sin a part of the gospel? And I do affirm this. I take this based on seven truths, and I'm gonna give the outline, and then I'll walk through each one quickly.

The seven things are, one, the gospel is fundamentally the same throughout the entire Bible. Number two, the definition of the word repentance. Number three, faith is more than mere mental assent. Number four, repentance is not sinless perfection.

Number five, the gospel is holistic and not uniconceptual. Number six, there is a biblical teaching of apostasy, which has to be accounted for. And number seven, the person who denies repentance as a part of the gospel still behaves as if it is.

And so those are our seven things, and let's break them down. Number one, the gospel is fundamentally the same throughout the Bible. The gospel that Paul preached, that Jesus preached, and that Abraham believed are all the same gospel, though given through progressively greater revelation.

We are told that Abraham received the gospel when he was told that through him all the world would be blessed. Paul wrote that in Galatians 3 .8. The Bible says Jesus went about preaching the gospel in Mark and in Luke.

Paul says that he was not ashamed of the gospel, for it was the power of God unto salvation. It is the power of God unto salvation, Romans chapter one, verses 16 and 17. Anyone who would try to claim that there are different gospels would be at odds with Paul who said that there is not another gospel, only false gospels which oppose the one true gospel, Galatians one, six through nine.

This is important because there are some who claim there is a different gospel for the Jews and Gentiles, one including repentance and one not. Now, I don't believe that that is the position of my opponent, but it's still something that needs to be stated in case this comes up later in the debate.

The Bible does not support the claim that there are multiple gospels. There is one gospel which includes repentance and faith in the promise of God, which is based on the completed work of Jesus Christ.

Number two, the definition of the word repentance. The word translated repentance in its etymological sense means a change of mind, metanoia, but the word has within it more than just a simple mental component.

Laonida, which is a Greek lexicon, says that metanoia means to change one's way of life as a result of a complete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness. Laonida goes on to say, though in English, a focal component of repentance is sorrow and contrition that a person experiences because of sin, the emphasis of metanoia is that specifically the total change, both in thought and behavior with respect to how one should think or act.

And this makes sense when we read repentance or repent in the scriptural texts, it bears this out. For instance, Luke chapter three, verse eight, says to bear fruit in keeping with repentance. Hebrews 6, one says, therefore, let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God.

Acts 26, 20 says, but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea and also the Gentiles that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.

It is clear from the biblical examples that repentance will affect our actions, not just our thinking. Number three, faith is more than mere mental assent. When the Protestants said that we are justified by faith alone, sola fide, the immediate reaction from the Roman Catholic Church was, if you leave a man to live by faith alone, he will inevitably degenerate into habitual sinfulness.

But the response was simple. Faith is not just mental agreement with facts, but it is a change of heart, it is a change of will, it is a change of desire toward God and toward sin. An example would be that of a parachute.

I can believe a parachute will save me if I jump from a plane, but that belief is not faith in the parachute. Faith is stepping out of the plane. So there are three Latin phrases that the Reformers used when talking about the subject of faith.

They used the phrase notitia, assensus, and fiducia. That means to know, to agree, and to trust. You can know that Jesus is the only Savior, and you can even agree that that is true. But if you do not trust in him, you are not saved.

And trusting in Christ will produce a change in your life. Number four, repentance is not sinless perfection. A common question that arises is, well, if repentance is required, how much? Well, the first act of repentance is turning from the sin of unbelief and recognizing that all of our sin is an affront to God.

The Christian life then becomes a spiritual battleground against the forces of evil. And we live a life of daily, albeit imperfect, repentance. Someone who says that if we make repentance a part of the gospel means we must demand perfect repentance must by necessity also say that we must require perfect faith because we're saying faith is required for the gospel.

So if faith is required, it must be perfect. No, nobody says that. Well, then why do we say that about repentance? No one claims that perfect faith is required. No one should also claim that perfect repentance is required.

The two go together and it's a non sequitur to say one and not the other. Number five, the gospel is holistic and not uniconceptual. Often when we think about the gospel, we limit it only to the concept of forensic justification.

This means we are declared righteous because of the work of Christ alone. I believe that, I preach that, I teach that doctrine. All Christians should. It's the doctrine of the gospel. It's the doctrine of the truth that when we believe in Christ, his righteousness becomes ours.

That is not up for debate. But the gospel also includes sanctification and glorification. Christ came to save us from the penalty of sin, of course, but he also came to save us from the power of sin and the presence of sin.

We will be saved from the penalty of sin when we trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. We'll save from the power of sin through a life of repentance and we will one day be saved from the presence of sin when we are with him in glory.

Therefore, to remove repentance of sin from the gospel is to limit the gospel to only one feature of the gospel, which is forensic justification. And that would be wrong. Number six, there is a biblical teaching of apostasy which has to be accounted for.

Apostasy is falling away from the faith. It is a biblical word. It means to depart or defect or to rebel. Different Christian traditions see this differently. Some believe a person can be truly saved, truly justified, and then have that grace removed, fall away in the sense of being genuinely born again, and then not.

Tommy is a Baptist, I'm a Baptist, so we both believe that that's not the case. As a Calvinistic Baptist, I believe that a person who abandons the faith was never truly saved to begin with. As Jesus says in Matthew chapter seven, when he's speaking to those who say, Lord, Lord, he says, depart from me, I never knew you.

He doesn't say I knew you for a little while. He doesn't say I knew you for as long as you could handle it. He said, I never knew you. And why this matters here is in regard to the issue of what faith is.

If faith is merely a mental assent to the truth, what if a person says they believe in Jesus but live a habitual rebellion against him, live in habitual rebellion against him? Can we not then say on the authority of John's first epistle that this person is not genuinely saved?

First John 3 .9 says, no one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him. First John 5 .18 repeats this by saying, we know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning or make a practice of sinning, but he who is born of God protects him and the evil one does not touch him.

A lifestyle of continual, habitual, unrepentant sin which the person has no desire to fight and continues to foster is a lifestyle which is indicative of a person who is not saved, no matter what they have confessed with their mouth.

Number seven, the person who denies repentance as a part of the gospel still behaves as if it is. If a person was living in habitual unrepentant sin with no desire to change and they stood before my brother Tommy, I do not believe that he would affirm them as a Christian, even if they claimed to be.

If a drag queen stood before him and claimed to be a Christian, I don't think he would receive that confession. If a person came to his church and was involved in an extramarital affair and his mistress was on his arm and he claimed to be a Christian, I don't think he would receive this confession.

If a man was a known child abuser, drunkard, pornographer, or abortionist, I don't think he would receive that confession either. The list goes on and on. So the issue at hand is not whether repentance is perfect in anyone because we all have sins, we all struggle with sin, we all have besetting sin that we deal with.

The issue is whether or not we are at war with sin or whether we foster it, love it, excuse it, and promote it. The unrepentant person does all of those things, but the repentant person does not. He hates his sin and he prays for the day when it will be no more.

There are so many passages that would affirm that repentance, which includes a change of mind and behavior towards sin, is a part of the gospel. Romans 6, James 2, both present faith as more than mere mental ascent, but a change of spiritual disposition.

This is why Paul says in Romans, or excuse me, 1 Corinthians chapter six, when he's talking about a whole list of sins, he says to the Corinthians, "'Such were some of you, not such are some of you.'".

Regeneration produces more than just, excuse me, regeneration produces more than just lip service. It produces a changed life. Thank you, and that ends my opening statement.

Thank you very much, Pastor Keith Foskey, for that roughly 12 minute opening statement. And what I'll do is reset timer. And before I hand it over to you though, Pastor Tommy, I'll let those in the audience know that I am all caught up on your questions.

I appreciate how engaged everybody is already. So anybody just joining us, yes, we will be having an audience Q &A once we're done with our main portions of tonight's event. And so please do your best to tag me and send in those questions.

We'll have some fun with them. Okay, Pastor Tommy McMurtry, we will now hand it over to you. And whenever you're ready, you have 12 minutes.

Go ahead.

All right, so is repentance of sin a part of the gospel? Is the subject tonight. And so if you mean when you say repent of sins, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, then I would say yes. And, but the question is, if that's what you mean, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, when you say repent of sins, then why don't you just go ahead and say, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?

The problem with this phrase, repent of sins, one, you can't find it anywhere in the Bible, but yet for some reason, everyone insists on saying it. We see it written in many gospel tracts. And those who do not say it are often accused of denying the doctrine of repentance.

And now I'm not completely against using extra biblical terms and phrases. I often do it myself, but at the same time, if you're not capable of articulating your position with biblical words and phrases, it's probably because your position isn't completely accurate.

And this phrase, repent of sins, it's become so prominent in the Christian world that many don't feel like they're Orthodox if they don't say it. And as a result of this, most Christians do use this phrase, but the meaning of it is extremely broad.

And I know this too, because as somebody who fellowships with people who would be considered on both sides of the aisle, I talk to people about this. I ask them often what they mean. I don't just assume the worst when I hear this phrase, but there is a whole broad spectrum of beliefs out there when it comes to this phrase that's not in the Bible.

You have those who teach that you have to quit sinning to be saved, which is kind of what you're saying if you tell somebody you must repent of sins to be saved, but you also have those who teach you don't have to quit sinning, but you have to agree to quit sinning.

But then you have those who teach, well, you don't have to quit sinning because nobody can quit sinning, but you at least need to want to quit sinning. Well, that would also require convincing somebody that they can do something that is not possible.

But you also have those who teach that if you truly get saved, you will quit sinning. It will be the result of salvation. And then you have those who teach that if you're truly saved, there will be at least some level of visible change in your life.

I can't ever clearly define that from the scriptures, but they all claim it. But you also have those who teach that to repent of your sins is to change your mind about your sinful condition and turn to Jesus for cleansing from your sin.

It has nothing to do with changing your life or committing to discipleship. And I would say that that goes along with what I believe, but what we have here, we have this huge range of people who use the same phrase, repent of sins, and some of them are teaching full-blown work salvation, while others are basically teaching, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.

But they're all using that same phrase, repent of sins, that's not in the Bible. And they don't want to just say, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. And those of us with confidence and full assurance that we can tell people just believe on the Lord Jesus Christ we continue to get accused of being unbiblical, even though we have a verse in the Bible where somebody says, sirs, what must I do to be saved?

And they said, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. We have John 3, 16, that says, whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. We have John 20, verse 30, it says, and many other signs that Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, but these are written that you might believe that Jesus is a Christ, the son of God, and that believing you might have life through his name.

We have 1 John 5, 13, these things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life and that you may believe on the name of the son of God.

And so even though we have biblical terminology, crystal clear spelled out in the Bible, whenever we put this in our doctrinal statements, when we promote these things, we often get accused of giving people false assurance as if telling people if they will trust in Christ, the fact that he paid for their sins and will believe on him, that we're giving them a false assurance by getting them to depend on Christ and not themselves.

We get called, accused of teaching easy believism. Now, before I ever accept that accusation, I always have to ask, well, what do you mean by easy believism? Do you believe it's hard to believe? Do you believe it's hard to get saved?

You know, or do you mean one, two, three, repeat after me, because I don't really know anybody that believes that, but we get accused of that. You also, you hear, you get accused, or we get accused that we're teaching people, they can get saved and then go murder a bunch of people and still go to heaven.

And so my question is, do you believe that you're saved because you're not murdering people? Well, what about the lesser sins? Do you believe you're saved because you forsook some sins, but you haven't forsaken all sins?

I mean, it seems like it makes a lot more sense to just trust in the fact that Jesus Christ never sinned and trust in him and his work. But I really hope that tonight we do have a productive conversation and actually hash out some of these things, because I'm tired of the false accusation that come at guys like me.

And I'm also tired of people on our side, straw manning the other side. I think our side is often equally guilty of misrepresenting the other side. And so while I'm not super familiar with what Pastor Foskey teaches on repentance, I am gonna assume a few things, or I'm assuming right now a few things about his beliefs.

And if I'm wrong, I hope he'll correct me. But I do believe there are some real areas where me and him probably do disagree in this subject because of the fact too, he is a Calvinist. But I personally believe that when it comes to the subject of repentance, that it's very important we actually get to the root of where we disagree.

Most of these conversations, a lot of them are about semantics. A lot of it is people killing straw men, everyone telling the other person what they really believe based on what they're saying. And I hope we don't do that.

I hope we can get laser focused on the real subject. And that is, what is the true evidence of salvation? Is it your works or is it the work of Jesus Christ? And I really hope we don't get in a lot of the bad arguments tonight.

I had this in my notes and I know this has already been brought up. So I'm not rebuttaling yet, but I really hope we don't do the metanoia argument tonight. I'll say more about that. The word repent is used many different ways in the Bible.

And we don't need Hebrew and Greek to know how to define the word. Context always makes the definition crystal clear. Repentance is not exclusively a salvation word. It's not in the Bible and nor is it in the English language.

We just mainly today use it around religious things. I can have repentance when I decide I'm gonna go to McDonald's and I changed my mind and I go to Burger King instead. That's repentance. It won't save me, but it's repentance.

There's all kinds of repentance that people does that does not save them at all. And the Bible is full of all kinds of teaching on repentance that has nothing to do with salvation. So we have no right to complicate the gospel just because we don't like the way a professing believer is acting.

And sadly, many religious leaders act like if they don't have hell to threaten people with, then they don't have anything. But we shouldn't need the threat of hell to get people doing the right thing.

We should first and foremost motivate people through a love of God and then love for others, which is by the way, a major focus of what we see in 1 John. And where some scriptures have already been referred to from there.

We should use eternal rewards as a motivator. We should remind them of the chastening hand of God, that God chastens his children. These are the motivators that Paul used. He didn't threaten the people with hell or try to cast doubt on their salvation.

We have too many people in churches today who just can't seem to find assurance of salvation. And it's, I believe it's mainly bad teaching that causes people to doubt their salvation. God wants us to know we have eternal life.

And if you don't know that you're saved, it's either because you're not saved or you've been deceived by some bad teaching. Those who are truly trusting in the work of Jesus alone and actually have belief on the Lord Jesus Christ, they're the ones who find assurance.

They're the ones who find rest. Those who look for justification or proof of salvation in their filthy rags, in their works, are either gonna be very afraid or constantly in doubt if they are honest. Now, if you look at your works and you find assurance through them, then you're probably someone who is either extremely arrogant or completely unfamiliar with the sinfulness of man and the righteousness of God.

If you can look at your works and you feel justified and you feel that that's proof of your salvation, I'm afraid you haven't even repented of pride yet, which is a major sin that God happens to hate.

So I'm looking forward to this conversation tonight. I know I'm an independent fundamental Baptist, but I am someone who is ashamed of the way the IFB often attacks people on both sides of this issue.

And I don't need Pastor Foskey to be a heretic tonight. I don't need to try to prove he is a heretic. I don't need to prove he is unsaved. I don't want him to be unsaved because of his position on repentance.

But I do believe that IFB people and Calvinists have lost all credibility in what they say about others based on their belief about repentance. And I personally, I'm so frustrated with this subject and the way people behave on it.

I think a person would be a fool to just listen to what someone from the IFB or the Calvinist crowd would say about another preacher because of their beliefs on repentance. There has been so much misrepresentation and slander when it comes to this.

And so tonight, what I wanna do, I wanna judge Pastor Foskey on his words that come out of his mouth. After too, I have been able to get clarifications. Sometimes there's people who say things, they present things in a way that I would not present them.

Doesn't mean they're a heretic. Sometimes we gotta ask for some clarifying statements and then we judge people. I don't need somebody else to tell me what he said and nor do I need to assume the worst about something people say.

I really believe this is something where there are legitimate areas of disagreement. I hope we get to those tonight. And I do, I hope we have a productive conversation. And I believe based on Pastor Foskey's reputation and for sure my reputation that we can in fact do that tonight.

Pastor Tommy, thank you very much for that 12 minute opening statements. Gentlemen, I appreciate those opening statements and the work that you both put into those. And so, okay, we're moving into our rebuttal.

And so for our rebuttal, it is uninterrupted and it'll be for eight minutes. And so Pastor Keith, we will throw it back to you. And whenever you're ready, again, you got eight minutes.

Go ahead.

Well, I wanna say I'm very encouraged by Brother Tommy's opening statement and I agree with him. And what's funny is he said at the beginning of his opening that he didn't wanna assume the worst. And I wholeheartedly agree.

One of the things I did in preparation for this is I went back and I listened to a few of his sermons on this issue because I wanted to try to understand better what he teaches so that I'm better able to interact today.

And I wanted to see where we agreed. I do want us to try to find the areas of agreement as well as the areas of disagreement. And I do think some of the areas of disagreement are simply going to be nuances, but they're important and they're not things that should be simply overlooked.

But I'm thankful for much of what he said. And I just wanna say that as part of my rebuttal. He mentioned, are we telling people quit sinning because this is something that's impossible. I wanna affirm that I do not believe in sinless perfectionism.

I do not take a second blessing view, which is held by some in the holiness movement and even some of the Methodist movement, take a position that someone can be without sin and thoughtward indeed. I do not believe that.

And this is why I wanted to make that a part of my opening to say that I'm not saying that repentance equals sinless perfectionism. Repentance, again, is more than simply a sin of the mind, but it's not a complete change of the person because we continue to be fallen sinners in a fallen world who struggle and battle against sin.

So to clarify, the idea that repentance of sin means quit sinning is not what I'm saying, but I hope in our conversation we'll talk more about that. At the same time too, he mentioned that the Bible doesn't say repent of sins.

And I will affirm, you know, because again, I heard him say that in a sermon and I'd heard that before, had looked around. The Bible certainly does use the word repent in relationship to sins, but the phrase repent of sins is not in the Bible.

My rebuttal to that would be the word trinity is not in the Bible either, but the concept, the theology is there. And so we have to say more than just, it doesn't say these three words in succession, therefore this concept is not taught.

But if Tommy is saying, well, we shouldn't use that phrase because it's not in the Bible, I would say, okay, but what does it mean when we say repent of sins and how can it be used in a right way? So that's one of the areas I would push back on that.

He says he tells people to believe on the Lord Jesus. I want to know how he defines belief. Is belief merely agreeing with a fact? I think James chapter two would tell us that's not the case because it says even demons believe and shudder.

And so if belief is merely assenting to a set of propositions, then I don't think that's what the Bible is referring to when it talks about faith and belief. And faith and belief both come from the same word, pistis, the word meaning to trust.

He talked about the concern about false assurance. I will say this, and I hope we get into this in the conversation. One of my concerns is that we not present the gospel in such a way that people think that it is simply merely a mental assent to a certain set of propositions.

And I'm glad to hear that that's not what he's doing. He said he doesn't teach easy believism, and however you define that, he doesn't teach one, two, three, repeat after me. Great, because I would hope that you wouldn't because I think we both would stand on the side and say that type of evangelism is not really evangelism.

You're simply trying to get someone to say something, get someone to repeat something, and that's not what we should be doing. He mentioned going to murder a bunch of people and how we're talking about the big sins versus the little sins.

I know this is gonna come up later, but it's not about big sins and little sins. And it's not about, as the Roman Catholics would define, mortal sin versus venial sin. The difference is habituality. The difference is the person who lives in this habitual, sinful lifestyle without any desire to change.

That is an indication that there is a problem in the person's heart. And so that is the difference. It's not about the greater or lesser sin, but the habituality of the sin. I do agree that we wanna get to the heart of where we disagree.

We don't wanna straw men each other. I certainly don't want to, and I'm glad he doesn't want to for me either. He talked about looking for evidence of salvation. I fully and completely tell people every Sunday that the gospel is that we find our salvation completely and fully in the work of Christ and that we don't look to ourselves to find anything good in ourselves.

We look to Jesus. So I agree. This is an area where we will agree. And so we'll talk about how that works out, but I'm gonna quote Luther.

Luther said,.

I preach the gospel every week because every week my people forget. We have to be reminded that it is the work of Christ and not our works that saves. Are we complicating the gospel? I don't believe. So because we're using the, we're talking about the gospel in the way the Bible does, and the gospel is more than just forensic justification.

The gospel is more than just that. The gospel is all that is encompassed in salvation. You mentioned about not having to threaten people with hell.

I,.

Maybe we can talk about this in cross-examination and maybe we will, but I don't go around threatening people with hell. I have heard that in other churches, but I do preach on the doctrine of hell and I do remind people that hell is a reality.

And we do have passages in scripture about false converts who end up in hell. Matthew chapter seven, verses 21 to 23 identifies the one who says unto me, Lord, Lord, but is not saved. And so we don't go around threatening people with hell, but there is a sense in which God at times struck fear into the hearts of his people by reminding them of his justice, such as with Ananias and Sapphira.

It says after they died before the people of God, all of them stood in fear. And so there are times where we point to the holiness and righteousness of God. I wanna, I'll finish with this. He said the IFE and Calvinists have lost all credibility.