Welcome

Saving Faith in the Gospel of John

David K. Huttar

 For an evangelical Christian there can hardly be any subject more important than the nature of the gospel. The very nerve center of gospel witness and missions is giving a clear answer to the age-old, ever-relevant question, “What must I do to be saved?”

Yet most evangelical academicians in theology are well aware that there are today different answers to this question. On the one hand, there is the view holding that in order to be saved one must accept Jesus Christ not only as Savior from sin, but also as the Lord and Master of one's life. Or to state the matter differently, it maintains that faith must be accompanied by repentance understood as a turning from sin. Without these aspects present, a person has not truly received Christ and has not truly become a Christian. This view has come to be referred to as “lordship salvation” and has been given its most well-known expression by John MacArthur of The Master's Seminary.1

On the other hand, there are those who maintain that matters of the masterhood of Christ belong to the ongoing Christian life, not to the entrance into a saving relationship with Him. This view is commonly held by teachers from Dallas Theological Seminary such as Charles Ryrie2 and Zane Hodges,3 as well as by many of their students.

 The debate between these two viewpoints has been healthy, on the one hand, in that it has stimulated refinement of theological expression. But from another perspective it has been disappointing, not only because there has apparently been no resolution to the debate, but also because the debate has at times failed to rise to the best level of argumentation. A significant part of these failures results from the fact that key words such as Lord, faith and repentance mean such different things to the two sides.4

It is this elusiveness and ambiguity of the terminology and perhaps of any nomenclature that has made it difficult for this writer to know just how to refer to the two positions. But for want of any better terminology they will be called “lordship salvation” and “non-lordship salvation” respectively.

Let it be clear, however, that there is much common ground between the two positions. Both hold to the authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures. Both likewise embrace the Reformation's material principle of justification by faith alone.5 Furthermore, this debate is not simply the Calvinist-Arminian debate in different dress. Ultimately, the debate involves two differing views of faith.6 It is not surprising, therefore, that the fourth Gospel, which makes such prominent use of the word “believe,” should play a significant role in the discussion, as is evidenced in a recent paper on the subject by Charles Bing.7 It is the intention of this article to examine Bing's efforts to support non-lordship salvation with evidence from John's Gospel. It will be found that, despite his effort, Bing fails to deal adequately with evidence.8

But first let me comment in passing on Bing's reasons for seeing this Gospel's evidence as particularly determinative in the evangelical debate over salvation. His claim that the Gospel of John is of paramount importance in the debate rests on John's statement of purpose in John 20:31. But in response to that conclusion, one must ask whether an author's contribution to a subject, or even his interest in a subject, can be measured by the explicitness with which he states his purpose in writing. Some writers prefer to be more subtle in regard to their purpose. We should not, therefore, in principle, conclude that other New Testament writers are not interested in precision in regard to the conditions for salvation simply because they do not emphasize that in a purpose statement. Furthermore, is it really accurate to say that John's purpose statement indicates his interest in precision concerning the conditions for salvation? His actual statement indicates an interest in fostering belief; it does not explicitly indicate an interest in fostering a precise understanding of belief. The conviction that John's Gospel is somehow special in this area has not been demonstrated by Bing.

But this caveat having been made, let us enter debate on Bing's own terms. What does the Gospel of John teach concerning the conditions for salvation? Bing makes essentially two points: 1) the only condition for salvation taught in John is believing;9 and 2) all believing in Christ mentioned in this Gospel is saving faith bringing eternal life to the believer.10 Does the evidence of the Gospel of John support these theses?


 Is Faith the Only Condition?

With regard to the first, scholars of different persuasions are quite ready to admit that faith in Christ is often described in John's Gospel under other wording. Thus, receiving Christ, coming to Christ, eating and drinking of Christ, looking to Him and similar expressions may all be legitimately seen as merely different pictures of believing in Christ. They are, therefore, not truly exceptions to the view that faith is the only condition for salvation in John. However, there are at least a few passages in John in which apparent conditions for salvation cannot so easily be fitted into this theological structure. Let us examine four such passages.

1. Those who love their life will lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life (12:25).11 In this saying, salvation (eternal life) is received through hating one's life. This condition is both a necessary condition, for if people do not hate their life they will lose it, and a sufficient condition, as the last part of the verse makes clear. They key interpretive question is, of course, what it means to hate one's life.

It might be thought by some that this expression means no more than to realize one's sinfulness and therefore to come to Christ for salvation from the guilt and penalty of sin. If this is the correct interpretation of the phrase, then it does amount to another way of talking about faith. But two considerations point to a different understanding.

First, the immediately preceding context (12:24) has been talking about dying, anticipating the impending death of Christ to bear fruit through redemption. As the thought broadens from Christ to his followers in verse 25, the “dying” of verse 24 is picked up in the “hating life” of verse 25. This appears, then, to be more than simply recognizing one's sinful condition and coming to Christ for forgiveness.12

Second, a number of other “life” sayings both in the Gospel of John and elsewhere speak either of literal death or of “death to self.” On the other hand, no “life” saying can be readily taken to speak of death in the sense of realizing one's sinfulness. Thus, we read of laying down one's life (John 10:11, 15, 17; 13:37-38; 15:13; 1 John 3:16), loving not one's life, even if that should lead to death (Revelation 12:11), losing one's life (Matthew 10:39; 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; 17:33) and hating one's life (Luke 14:26).

Thus, Jesus in John 12:25 appears to be laying down something like death to self as a necessary and sufficient condition for salvation.13


2. “Whoever keeps my word will never see/taste death” (8:51).14 Here it can hardly be doubted that not seeing or tasting death is generally the same as having eternal life or salvation, and that keeping Jesus' word is presented as a sufficient condition for possessing salvation. What needs to be explored in this saying is the meaning of keeping Christ's word.

 Some might want to opt for a rather minimal approach to the meaning of this phrase, holding that it refers simply to believing that Christ's message of salvation from sin is true. According to this interpretation, a person who believes, honors and treasures Christ's word of salvation as true can thus be said to be keeping or guarding his word.

But will such a minimal interpretation of the phrase stand up? Not likely. For the meaning of the phrase in this verse cannot be separated from the meaning of the same phrase in verse 55, where Jesus says, “I keep his (the Father's) word.” To be sure, this includes the thought that Jesus treasures the Father's word. But it also would seem to refer to His perfect obedience, a point made also at 8:29, “I always do what is pleasing to him.” Moreover, there appears to be a conceptual connection between verse 51 and verse 55, wherein Christ's obeying the Father's word gives Him the authority to require that His followers obey His word. It is such a keeper of Jesus' word that will by no means taste spiritual death.


3. “I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them. . . . The one who rejects me and does not receive my word has a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge” (12:47-48). This passage entails issues similar to the last one, except that here the keeping of Jesus' word is a necessary rather than a sufficient condition for salvation, for without this there is judgment.15

There are two interpretive issues. The first is the same issue faced in the discussion of 8:51-52, whether keeping Christ's words implies mere belief or also obedience. There seems to be no good reason to deviate from the conclusion reached at that point, that there is more here than simple belief. The second issue is somewhat related to the first; do the words that one is to keep refer to Christ's message of salvation or do they also include, at least in principle, an incipient ethical content?

While most of Christ's sayings in the Gospel of John concern the former, there are some sayings that get into the area of the obligation attaching to following Christ. Furthermore, some of these “ethical” sayings are in Chapter 12. Verse 26, for example, talks of following and serving Christ. There is no good reason for not including such a saying in the words that are to be kept in order that one should not come into judgment (12:47-48).

 Another verse in the chapter also points to Christ's words that must be kept as having ethical content. In verse 36 the largely unbelieving crowd is told to believe in the light that they may become children of the light. This latter phrase is commonly understood to be a Hebraic idiom referring to those who imitate the ethical qualities of the light. Jesus is the Light (12:35), and believing in Him is supposed to result in imitation of Him.

This thought of children being imitators is found at other places in the fourth Gospel. In Chapter 8 the Jews are told that if Abraham were truly their father, they would imitate him in honoring Jesus (8:39); if God were their Father, they would share His attitude toward the Son (8:42); as it is, they imitate their father the devil in their false claims and desire to kill the Messiah (8:44). Furthermore, Jesus' own Sonship also implies imitation of the Father (5:19).

Sonship, then, clearly involves imitation. To be children of the light is to be imitators of Christ. And it is to this kind of living that people are called to respond in faith (12:36). This call is part of the word of Christ that people are to keep in order not to be judged on the last day.


4. Much is made in the theology of non-lordship salvation of the fact that repentance does not occur in the Gospel of John.16 It is, of course, literally true that the word “repent” is not to be found there. However, it seems often to be overlooked that the idea is present in 5:14, where Jesus says to the sick man, “Do not sin any more, so that nothing worse happens to you.”

 There seems to be no reason why the first clause should not be taken to refer to repentance as traditionally understood: a turning from sin. As to the second clause, there is considerable consensus that the “something worse” refers to eternal damnation.17 If this reading is correct, there seems to be at least an implicit teaching here in the Fourth Gospel that repentance is necessary for salvation. At least that is what Jesus told this unconverted individual. The alternative would be to say that this person represents such a special case (his sickness was due to sin) that his experience cannot be generalized. But that kind of expedient has every appearance of being special pleading.

What we have tried to show in the discussion of these four passages is that there are data in the Gospel of John that are not particularly amenable to non-lordship salvation. What is worse is that Bing makes absolutely no attempt to interact with this kind of data. Non-lordship salvation theology has not very well demonstrated its case that there are no conditions for salvation given in John other than believing.


 Is All Faith Saving?

We turn, then, to the second of Bing's points, that faith in Jesus is always saving faith as far as the Gospel of John is concerned. In order to show this, Bing has to give a rather forced explanation of two problematic passages in 8:30-31 and 2:23.

In 8:30-31 John tells of many Jews believing in Christ and of Christ encouraging them to remain in his word.18 But as the account continues, we find Christ addressing people who are slaves to sin (8:34), who are seeking to kill Jesus (8:37), who do not receive Christ's word (8:43), who are not children of God (8:42) but children of the devil (8:44), who in fact do not believe in Jesus (8:45). Thus on the surface we seem to have a glaring contradiction: believers (8:30-31) who are not believers (8:45). The usual explanation is that the belief in verses 30-31 was superficial and that its superficiality is indicated by the rest of Christ's description of these “believers.” It would seem to be a rather clear case of belief (8:30-31) that was not ultimately saving.

It is this construction of the passage that Bing clearly denies,19 partly because of its involvement in seemingly contradictory statements: they believed (8:30-31) and they did not believe (8:45); they were “unbelieving believers.”20 As an alternative, therefore, Bing insists that we have a different group addressed in verses 34-58 from that addressed in verses 31-32. The group, he thinks, that speaks to Christ in verse 33 and engages in dialogue with Him in verses 34-58 is the group that had been opposing Him in verse 25. In the meantime, John had parenthetically introduced another group in verses 30-32.21

But this way of reading the passage is not only highly speculative; it is also fatally flawed. For we can hardly divorce the response given in verse 33 (“We have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean by saying, You will be made free?”) from the statement made by Christ in verse 32 (“The truth will make you free”). Jesus had said that His word of truth would make them free (8:32), to which they responded that they were not enslaved (8:33). They even cited His statement (“You will be made free”) as if they understood that it had been spoken to them (8:33). There is thus the most intimate interconnection between verse 32 and verse 33. If there are two separate groups in all this interchange, that idea is very much disguised in the text. Thus, Bing's way of handling the passage does not have much to commend it. It is better to maintain the common view that the faith of verses 30-31 was superficial and faded when challenged and exposed for what it was.

Another form of the two-audience approach must also be rejected.22 This approach holds that there is a subtle difference of meaning between the grammatical construction used in verse 30 (pisteuein eis tina) and the one found in verse 31 (pisteuein tini), as if the former expressed true belief and the latter expressed superficial belief. Accordingly, there is held to be a distinction between the group of true believers in verse 30 and the group of superficial believers in verse 31. But a number of scholars are now quite willing to admit that such grammatical distinctions cannot always be pressed.23 This attempt to distinguish two groups, therefore, is also to be dismissed.

There is, however, a far more obvious explanation of the passage along psychological lines. That is, what we apparently have here are people who at one point believed, but who subsequently changed their minds and no longer believed. Such an explanation is palpable, I submit, not only in terms of the tendencies of human nature and even in terms of what Scripture relates concerning human nature, but most of all in terms of what the whole context of this passage would lead us to believe about the people involved. Let us explore, then, this context.

In verse 25 the people are at least mildly challenging Jesus' statements, and in verse 27 John records that they did not understand that Jesus was speaking to them concerning the Father. And yet by verse 30 many were believing in Jesus. What brought about this somewhat abrupt change of attitude? All that intervenes in verses 28-29 is Jesus' claim to be the Son of Man and to have a unique relationship to the Father; but these are by no means new themes in his message, and so it remains a little puzzling that these statements would finally have illuminated the audience to the point of belief. Of course, it is possible that what we have in verses 28-29 is a very condensed version of Christ's remarks, that a great deal more was actually said, and that this is what formed the basis for the crowd's illumination. Or perhaps it was Jesus' last claim in verse 29, that of perfect (“always”) obedience to the Father, that caught their attention. We simply do not know for certain what brought about their changed attitude, but the impression still is that the change was rather sudden. Further, the idea that their believing was somewhat sudden is perhaps supported by yet another detail in the text, that is, that it was while Jesus was still speaking (8:30) that the many came to believe. While this suddenness of belief is not in and of itself evidence that the belief was superficial, still it is very amenable to that conclusion.

 Moreover, verse 31 is intimately connected with verse 30 by the word “therefore.” Christ's response in verse 31 is to some extent shaped by their belief in verse 30, and this response would be a most appropriate way of responding to a group of people in which He detected a superficiality of faith. It is as if He said that the genuineness of their faith will be evidenced by their continuing in His word.

In addition, the response of these “believers” in verse 33 indicates that they were grossly deficient in their concept of belief. Their concept apparently had no sense of believing in Christ as Savior from sin; they don't even perceive that He is referring to His teaching (“the truth”) bringing a deliverance from sin, which clearly is His meaning, since He talks of slavery to sin (8:34). One may wonder whether these “believers” understood much at all about their own depravity and enslavement to sin. How, then, can their “belief” be a saving faith? Salvation from what?

In view of these contextual considerations, therefore, it seems much more likely that we should understand here a fading away of immature faith to the point of non-faith (8:45) than that we should posit a change of audience with no clear contextual indication. That the faith of these “believers” did not last is entirely realistic in terms of what we know of the human psyche from Scripture and experience.

This understanding of 8:30-31 as describing a faith that did not last (and was therefore not a saving faith) has the advantage also of being confirmed by considerations external to the passage. It is precisely the truth taught in the parable of the soils, particularly in Luke's statement that some hearers believe only for a while (Luke 8:13). Moreover, in the Gospel of John itself we read of people possessing for a time other spiritual qualities that shortly fade away, as in those whose willingness to rejoice in the Baptizer's ministry was only temporary (5:35), or in those “disciples” whose following of Jesus came to an end when they heard His hard saying (6:66).

In this writer's estimation, Bing has failed to disprove the view held here, that John 8:30-31 describes a faith that does not seem, as far as our evidence takes us, to be genuine saving faith.


2. The other passage in which spurious faith is often detected is John 2:23-25:

 

Many believed in his name because they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part would not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people, and needed no one to testify about anyone; for he himself knew what was in everyone.


It is probably not wise to build the case that this speaks of faith that is not really genuine on the idea that it was faith in miracles. After all, the Johannine Jesus does not always decry miracles. In fact, in John 10:38 He tells His opponents to believe the miracles.

It is better, therefore, to suggest that the main indication that the many who believed were believing in a superficial manner lies in the comment that Jesus did not entrust Himself to them. What are the connotations of Jesus withdrawing from people, not committing to them, as that concept is found in the fourth Gospel? There are at least four passages in the Gospel that, taken together, form a pattern for the meaning of this kind of action.


1. “When Jesus realized that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain by Himself” (6:15). Clearly Jesus' withdrawal involves the conviction that the people's understanding was grossly deficient. While their attachment to Jesus is not actually called faith, yet it is virtually that. For the people's declaration, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world” (v. 14), is the same kind of declaration that is otherwise attributed to faith (1:49; 4:42; 6:69; 7:31; 11:27). Thus, Jesus' withdrawal seems to be a response to deficient faith, faith so deficient that it can only see Jesus as a King whom they can manipulate into action. This is the crowd that sought Jesus merely because they ate their fill of bread (6:26).


2. In John 7:6-9 Jesus did not commit Himself to His brothers' urging that He go to the feast and make Himself known to His disciples. Their plan was born of unbelief, and Jesus did not commit Himself to it.


3. In 8:5924 Jesus withdrew in the face of what we have already seen to be superficial belief turned to unbelief and even to hostility.


4. Once more (12:3625) Jesus withdrew from those who would not believe (12:37), even though earlier He had in a sense committed Himself to them in the triumphal entry (12:12-14).


If Jesus' pattern was to withdraw from unbelief or radically deficient belief as these passages seem to indicate, the implication of this for John 2:23-25 is that the belief of the many (2:23) was likewise deficient, even though it is formally called belief (2:23).

Thus in reference to both 8:30-31 and 2:23, there are good reasons to retain the common view that these passages talk about superficial faith, faith that begins but does not persevere, faith that does not finally save. As a result, the second point of Bing's argument does not seem any more substantial than the first. More broadly, his attempt to defend non-lordship salvation from the Johannine evidence is misguided.


 Conclusion

Undoubtedly, non-lordship salvation will continue to be defended. But ultimately it will be found wanting. It is fundamentally defective; its view of faith is truncated because it does not include within its concept of faith the idea of repentance as traditionally understood. On the other hand, some expressions of lordship salvation have been over-zealous. They have used terminology loosely and have opened themselves up to much unnecessary criticism.

But there is a way of stating lordship salvation that may avoid the infelicities of the existing statements, at least as they are popularly expressed. Such a formulation is offered in conclusion, with the hope that it might pave the way for better understanding. This formulation of the condition for salvation avoids the debated terms such as Lord and repentance. Furthermore, this formulation does not require a great deal of theological understanding or sophistication on the part of the prospective believer. Simply stated, to accept Jesus savingly is to accept Him as the only Savior from sin and as the One who has the authority to command obedience to His will. The acceptance of this authority may be very minimal and principial. But it must be present to some extent in order for faith to be saving faith.




 Endnotes


 1John F. MacArthur, Jr., The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988).

 2Charles C. Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life (Chicago: Moody, 1969); So Great Salvation (Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press, 1991).

 3Zane Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981); Grace In Eclipse (Dallas, TX: Redencion Viva, 1985).

 4A fairly good treatment of the whole issue may be found in Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 713-716. Perhaps Grudem does not give enough attention to the different nuances given by the two sides to crucial terms.

 5Both would likewise agree with James that faith without works is dead. Because of these common tenets, it is unwise to use the term “heresy” in reference to either position. The lordship salvation position should not be seen as “another gospel” (Galatians 1:6-9) that has added works to faith.

 6Even here, it should be noted, both seem to agree with the classic definition of faith as consisting of knowledge, assent and trust or, in some formulations, assent (becoming persuaded), acceptance or affirmation (taking it to heart) and trust. It is in the interpretation of the trust element that they differ, non-lordship salvation limiting this to trusting oneself to Christ as the only Savior from sin and lordship salvation extending this to include also, at least principally, an entrustment of oneself to Christ in respect to whatever He is.

 7Charles C. Bing, “The Contribution of John's Gospel to the Salvation Controversy” (paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Philadelphia, PA, 17 November, 1995).

 8It would be unfortunate and unfair to see the present article as an attack on the Alliance teaching concerning the crisis experience. It is true that sometimes this doctrine has been formulated in terms of receiving Christ as Lord as distinct from receiving Him as Savior. However, this is only one possible understanding of the crisis experience, an understanding that is not written into our official statements nor binding upon our official workers. Alternatively, the crisis experience may be thought of as a work of God in which the believer responds to a fuller understanding of Christ's lordship than that understanding held at conversion.

 9“Also in John, we do not see other conditions attached to faith or any condition replacing faith. . . . The significance of John's lack of embellishment of faith and the absence of any other conditions emphasize this one condition as the only and sufficient means of obtaining eternal life.”

 10“Though sometimes faith is underdeveloped, faulty, weak, or minimal, it is always sufficient for eternal life. . . . [B]elief results in salvation. There are no convincing reasons for pleading a special use of believe that falls short of salvation.”

 11Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), 592, says, “His words are apparently addressed to Andrew and Philip, but it is impossible to confine the reference to them. Clearly the words are addressed to a wider audience, possibly including the Greeks also.” D.A. Carson, in The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 437, locates the saying as follows: “Strictly speaking, Jesus does not respond to the direct request of the Gentiles, but to the situation that their request represents.” Again (438), “It is properly applied to all of Jesus' followers.”

 12Luther called it despairing in oneself: “For he being thus terrified with the law, utterly despaireth of his own strength: he looketh about and sigheth for the help of a mediator and savior” (Martin Luther, ed. John Dillenberger [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961], 110).

 13Carson (438) says, “So the movement of thought in this passage runs from Jesus' uniquely fruitful death (the death of one seed producing many living seeds) to the mandated death of Jesus' followers as the necessary condition of their own life.” Again (439) he says, “This person denies himself or, to use another of Jesus' metaphors, takes up his cross daily (Mark 8:34 par.), i.e., he chooses not to pander to self-interest but at the deepest level of his being declines to make himself the focus of his interest and perception, thereby dying.” Morris (594) notes, “It points to the attitude that sets no store by this life in itself. The man whose priorities are right has such an attitude of love for the things of God that it makes all interest in the affairs of this life appear by comparison as hatred. This man will keep his life `unto life eternal.' ”

 14The question of the saying's audience is extensively discussed later on in this paper, but obviously the hearers are unbelievers, even hostile.

 15The passage is difficult to locate in a context. Verse 36b indicates that Jesus brought the previous discussion to a close. Verses 37-43 are the Gospel writer's summary of the Jewish rejection of Christ. This leaves verses 44-50 somewhat dangling. Some understand them as a summary of some of Jesus' main themes throughout the Gospel, placed here at the end of his public ministry for emphasis. That they are important seems to be indicated by their introduction (Jesus cried aloud). If this is the correct approach, the verses are hard to relate to any particular context. Another alternative is possible, however, namely that they are an extension of verses 35-36a, but have been moved to after the evangelist's comment on Jewish rejection so that the boldness of Christ's words stands more effectively in contrast to the silence of the Jewish authorities mentioned in verses 42-43. This approach obviously relates the verses to the immediate context of the chapter.

 16Bing says, “The word `repent' never appears in John. In spite of the strained efforts of some to impose repentance on the salvation accounts in John, we find the opposite.”

 17Morris (307) calls it “the eternal consequences of sin” and Carson (246), “final judgment.”

 18“As he was saying these things, many believed in him. Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, `If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples.' ”

 19“Saving faith is the most reasonable way to understand this passage.”

 20“It is certainly better than calling these people `unbelieving believers.' ”

 21“John's commentary in verse 30 is inserted before Jesus' remarks to notify the reader of a change of focus by Christ before the opposition resumes in verse 33.”

 22It is to Bing's credit that he also rejects this approach.

 23Morris, 337, 455; Carson, 346.

 24“So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.”

 25“ `While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become children of the light.' After Jesus had said this, he departed and hid from them.”


Editorial: A Mighty Dear Hyphen to Me!

A.B. Simpson as and the Modern Faith Movement, Paul L. King

Saving Faith in the Gospel of John, David K. Huttar

Opposition to Radical Reformation: Martin Luther Against Anabaptist and Radicals, Harold P. Shelly

Putting God to the Test: An Examination of Biblical Data, John V. Dahms

The Contribution of Cultural Anthropology to Missiology, Norman E. Allison

Separation Anxiety Disorder in a Missionary Child: Theoretical Considerations and Intervention Strategies, Mark D. Bullock

Patterns of Spiritual Direction, James A. Davies

An Effective Deliverance Methodology: Then and Now, Gerald E. McGraw

Dangers in the Deliverance Ministry, K. Neill Foster

Elio Cuccaro, Ph. D., Editor

About the Authors

Home > 1996

©2006 by K. Neill Foster