What Gospel is That?

This article is the second I've written today. It was written quickly so the grammar is probably very poor in places.

Today I noticed an article authored by Ken Neff and originally published by the Grace Evangelical Society(GES) in 2009 duplicated and republished by another organization.  The article is entitled "What Is the Free-Grace Gospel?"*UPDATE* link fixed as of 8 Aug 2012 (capitalized as authored).  This article is from the March-April 2009 edition of the GES publication "Grace in Focus."  There are a number of things of interest in the article, not the least of which is the description of the early controversy over the new GES doctrine which they call "The Free-Grace Gospel" but which is more commonly called "The Crossless Gospel" or "Promise Only Gospel." I didn't become aware of this controversy myself until 2007. Here is what Neff says about the early days of this doctrine:

There has been debate raging in the Free Grace (FG) community for several years. And it concerns something surprising: the gospel. In 1999 Zane Hodges gave a two-part message at the GES National Conference entitled, “How to Lead a Person to Christ.” Those messages were published in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (JOTGES) in Autumn 2000 and Spring 2001. 

Hodges indicated that the saving message is found in the Fourth Gospel, John (cf. John 20:30-31), with John 3:16 and 6:47 stating that all who merely believe in Jesus have eternal life. According to Hodges, Christ and His promise of eternal life is the only necessary content required to believe at conversion. 

I am not aware of anyone ever previously having preached or believed such a doctrine as presented by Zane Hodges at the GES National Conference in 1999.  One may find Hodges' teaching given at that conference here: How to Lead People to Christ Part 1. I am not alone in being unable to find any reference to any such view in the history of the Church. Dr. Fred Lybrand, while he was still President of The Free Grace Alliance(FGA), authored a letter about the controversy:  Fred Lybrand's Open Letter "Re: The GES Gospel (AKA The Crossless or Promise Only Gospel)" This letter was also authored in 2009, April 14th to be exact. 

In the letter to Dr. Fred Chay, the then incoming and current FGA President,  Lybrand says:

My suspicion is that many folks involved with the Grace Evangelical Society are simply unaware (as was I) that profound doctrinal shifts in the organization have occurred since 1999, culminating in sweeping doctrinal changes in their Statement (August 2005) and the recent attacks (the Hydra-headed article and the review of JB Hixson’s book) against those who disagree with the GES reformulation of The Gospel of Grace.

And having discussed these sweeping changes, and the reformulation of the Gospel of Grace Lybrand says:

To my knowledge, no one has ever held this view in the history of Christianity.

The new doctrine which Hodges presented at the 1999 GES National Conference has been dismantled and discredited in several venues. Lybrand's letter, linked above, is probably the most graceful and generous refutation to be found. Even still the GES still presents the doctrine as true, and GES followers seemingly still present it as true. The article "What Is the Free-Grace Gospel" is an apologetic for the idea that one can believe the Gospel of the Christ declared by Paul in 1Cor 15:1-11 and yet not be saved.  Does this article actually establish such a fact though? Could such an assertion be true, even if perhaps the article does not establish it? Let's find out!

After a brief overview of Hodges' doctrine, Neff states:

However, not all within FG circles found these arguments convincing. Some in the FGA disagree with Hodges’ claim that the saving message has not changed since John’s Gospel. They point to progressive revelation and say that since Calvary and the empty tomb, Jesus’ substitutionary death and bodily resurrection must be included in the gospel message and must be believed for anyone to receive eternal life. 

This is what Neff intended to argue against in 2009 while he was writing. His first shot is a description of how Hodges answered. That requiring belief in the crosswork of Christ is a "legalist gospel" and that the real issue is how much evidence, if any, a person needs to believe concerning Christ and His works in order to be born again. Then Neff states his position, using some of his and some of Hodges' words.

Arguing from 1 Cor 15:1–8, some have supported a progressive concept of the good news. In his recent Hydra article (Grace in Focus, Sept-Oct 2008), Hodges counters that that particular text indicates eight items are associated with the good news. He writes:  

Beyond question, all of these truths are of infinite importance. But Jesus never conditioned eternal life on believing any of them…In fact one could believe all eight of the truths listed above and not yet be born again. Believing all these truths is not the same as believing in Jesus for eternal life [emphasis his].  

One could easily get distracted from Neff's main point and bring up passages like John 8 where the Lord, speaking of His death and resurrection, and His deity says that unless you believe that He is Who He says He is you will die in your sins. Or John 6 where we read that unless you eat of His flesh, and drink of His Blood you have no life in you, but that if you do that you will have Eternal Life. Or that one must see their sins judged in Him as He is lifted up on the cross like the serpent in the wilderness. John 3. One could look at the passage that the GES, and Neff, hang their doctrinal hat on. John 20:30-31 and see that "these things" have been written that the reader would believe Christ is the Christ, the Son of God, and having believed this ABOUT Him the reader would have Eternal Life. Not "believing in Jesus for eternal life." So, obviously one could refute Hodges' doctrine all over again, but one could do so and yet still miss the point of Neff's article which I believe we will discover is a bold attack on the Gospel of the Christ.

Neff has in fact ever so subtlety developed a straw-man argument. When Paul describes someone having saving faith he goes back to Abram who "was assured" by God's word (about the Messiah) and this was accounted as righteousness. Rom 4:1-8 ; Gen 15:6 Paul doesn't talk about "believing the facts" but being assured by the message. Of course there is a huge difference. What one might discover, is that when Paul discusses how one is justified before God, there is nothing in his argument about "believing in Jesus for eternal life." Instead Paul focuses on the guilty man being accounted as righteous in spite of his terrible sin. Neff cleverly avoids the real issue, and the real solution and instead develops a Straw-Man he thinks he can easily knock down.

Neff then attempts to establish areas of agreement between his fictionalized group of detractors, and the GES. He states:

Both sides say that it is necessary to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved. 

Yet both sides do not agree on this. His own position is that one does not "believe IN JESUS CHRIST" but that:

Hodges and GES says that anyone who simply believes in Jesus for eternal life has it, regardless of whether he understands and believes how it is that Jesus is able to fulfill this promise. 

They say one must "believe in Jesus for eternal life" or in other areas "Believe Jesus for Eternal Life." Nothing about Him being Lord (Deity), or Christ. Both of which are required by their favorite proof-texts. Jn 20:30-31, and Acts 16:31

One side, even with its fictional doctrine created by Neff, believes that one must believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and because of that belief God will give the person Eternal Life, and the other side says that one believes "Jesus for eternal life". Not believing in the person, but believing in the perceived promise of eternal life for anyone who believes Him for it. Neff's assertions aside, there is no actual area of agreement here.

With respect to disagreement Neff says the following:

Some in the FGA say that one must not only believe in Jesus for eternal life, but he must also believe in the deity of Christ, in His death on the cross (understood specifically in terms of substitutionary atonement), and in His bodily resurrection on the third day. Absent these beliefs, a person who believes in Jesus and Him alone for eternal life is on his way to hell according to some in FG circles. 

Personally I would not say that one must believe (in) Jesus for eternal life, and also believe the Gospel. I would say that when one Believes the Gospel they are given Eternal Life. 1Cor 15:1-2 ; Acts 18:8 ; Gal 3:2 ; Eph 1:13-14 ; Rom 1:16 ; Acts 16:29-34 ; Jn 20:30-31... and so on.

Here is what the FGA has to say in their membership covenant.

The sole means of receiving the free gift of eternal life is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose substitutionary death on the cross fully satisfied the requirement for our justification.

Having misrepresented belief in Christ as portrayed by Paul in the Corinthians having received the Gospel, and misrepresenting the FGA's position, Neff then goes on to make some "observations" about his fabricated detractors' doctrine. He says:

It Seems Arbitrary to Say That Some, But Not All, of the Good News Must Be Believed. 

and

As a result, the necessity of picking and choosing the four or five or six items from some ten or more as absolute essential requirements for salvation causes one to pose and ponder—“Which ones?” 

and

Schliesmann’s essential elements of the Gospel are his required checklist and conditions for initial salvation. For him, nothing less can be the gospel. 

and

Tom Stegall proposes a different set of essentials, in his case, five: 

and

J. B. Hixson also has five essentials, but not the same five. Jonathan Perreault has six essentials. 

and finally

It seems that there is as yet no consensus as to what the essentials are or even how many there are. 

All of this appears to be stated in an attempt to discredit the view that one must believe the Gospel of the Christ in order to be saved by showing that several (albeit high profile) persons disagree one which "facts" are essential to be believed. This of course is bait for distraction again. I will but nibble at the hook a bit anyway.

Paul declares the Gospel which he preached to the Corinthians, that they received and were saved by, which all the Apostles preached and the Corinthians believed. 1Cor 15:1-2 ; Acts 18:8 ; 1Cor 15:11 These passages, and the others I've cited above state that believing the Gospel of the Christ results in Eternal Life. It does not matter what disagreements other men have. Let's continue with Neff's argument however.

We come to something on which I find that I largely agree with Neff on. He makes the following "observation":

Evidence That Can Lead to Saving Faith Is Not the Object of Saving Faith. The “content-of-faith” terminology is, in fact, a misnomer. Faith is only a persuasion. Faith is merely a realization of the truthfulness of a proposition that is proven by evidence. Evidence, therefore, is the basis of faith. 

In the case of saving faith, it is more than mere "persuasion" of something being true but actual "assurance" as a result of something being true. Gen 15:6 ; Rom 4:16-22 Some years ago I wrote a series of posts called "Identity" which were focused on God's emphasis on His Identity throughout the Scriptures. One of the many, many, problems with the GES doctrine is that they don't identify who this "Jesus" is that one is supposedly to "believe for eternal life."

John 20:30-31 says that if one believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God they will have Eternal Life. Rom 1:1-4 Paul talks about his call to preach the Gospel which identifies Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God ² which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, ³ concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, ⁴ and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

Notice, that just like John 19 & 20 are completely focused on Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and these things are written so that one will believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, so is Paul's Gospel focused on identifying this same Jesus. It is Christ's having been raised from the dead that identifies Him as the Son of God.

Likewise His crosswork having been accomplished "in accordance with the Scriptures" reveals He is the Christ.

Yet still we have not gotten to the thrust of Neff's argument. All of this so far has been nothing but distraction. He then briefly returns to his argument:

The “legalistic-gospel” proponents argue the evidence that must be believed concerns Jesus, His works, and His promise of eternal life—though they have at least four different lists; while “crossless-gospel” proponents argue it doesn’t really matter what evidence convinces a person, but that anyone who believes in Jesus has eternal life. 

John in his evangelistic letter, which is often called "God's Gospel Tract" and otherwise known (somewhat incorrectly) as "The Gospel of John" states the following in John 20:30-31

³⁰ And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; ³¹ but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

This is immediately after two chapters dealing with the death burial and resurrection of Christ. There are "many other signs" but these signs are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing (that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God) you may have life in His name.

John chose which facts to present. His goal was not to convince you that Jesus guarantees Eternal Life for any who "believe Him for it." John's goal was to present particular evidence that would demonstrate that He is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing this you would have Eternal Life.

Under the title of "Is The Gospel of John Really Outdated?" Neff takes another shot at a Straw-Man argument, and knocks the Straw-Man down by stating:

However, when penning his Gospel many years after Christ’s death and resurrection, John doesn’t place an asterisk anywhere to indicate that the saving message had actually changed since Christ’s time on earth. 

Who is saying that the message changed? John clearly demonstrates the same Gospel that Paul declared. In fact Paul tells us that John preached the very same Gospel. 1Cor 15:11

After all of this, I need to be reminded of what Neff is arguing against. So let's quote him from the beginning again.

Beyond question, all of these truths (the eight truths the GES recognizes in 1Cor 15:1-8) are of infinite importance. But Jesus never conditioned eternal life on believing any of them…In fact one could believe all eight of the truths listed above and not yet be born again. Believing all these truths is not the same as believing in Jesus for eternal life [emphasis his].  

On the final page of his article, under the title "From One Man's Perspective" Neff finally gives his actual argument. I have quoted a great deal from this article, but I have also left much of it out. I've done my level best to maintain Neff's context. However, since this passage is his actual argument I wish to quote it here in full.

I grew up the Mormon Church and before I was born again I believed in Jesus. In fact, I believed in His deity, His virgin birth, His miracles as proof of his deity, His sinless life, His death on the cross for my sins, His burial, His bodily resurrection on the third day, His ascension to heaven, His preparation of a place for His own, and His birth in Bethlehem.  

But as Hodges indicated, “one could believe all…of the truths listed above and not yet be born again.” I am proof of that fact.  

However, due to the ministry of a good friend and Campus Crusade in my life, I began to reevaluate the faith-works teaching of the Mormon Church. I remember, like it was yesterday, driving my Rambler back to the University on a Sunday evening. Suddenly I realized what my friend had said was true. Jesus alone, without my help, provides eternal life on the basis of faith alone. That evening, I believed in Jesus. I had previously believed many true things about Jesus, but only then did I believe in Jesus, and in Him alone, for eternal life.  

Requiring more than what is required is a type a legalism. I believe that is the heart of Hodges’ appeal. The issue is not a check-off list, but a Person. It’s captured in the saying, “You can know all about Him, but not know Him.” Reformed Theology misuses this saying. However, it communicates the reality of the current debate between the “legalistic-gospel” camp and the “crossless-gospel” camp. At least, that is how I see it. 

Do you notice the subtle usage of his Straw-Man argument, previously developed at the beginning, here?

He says that he believed many of the "facts" Paul includes as part of his Gospel, and some other facts. He states emphatically "But as Hodges indicated, "one could believe all... of the truths listed above and not yet be born again." I am proof of that fact." His straw-man is fully revealed however when he states "Suddenly I realized what my friend had said was true. Jesus alone, without my help, provides eternal life on the basis of faith alone." He doesn't stop to acknowledge the Straw-Man however, and I'm convinced there will be some GES followers who have read all this way and may as yet not seen what it is. He seals his argument with "Requiring more than what is required is a type a legalism. I believe that is the heart of Hodges’ appeal. The issue is not a check-off list, but a Person. It’s captured in the saying, “You can know all about Him, but not know Him.” " In his mind he has defeated the detractors he has invented.

However, no one is saying that if one believes the facts of the Gospel that they will be saved. One must receive the Gospel as Abram received the promise from God. You are assured in Him. Gen 15:6 ; Rom 4:1-22

Neff says that he was not saved while he was a Mormon. Yet he claims to have believed in Jesus. Does not Jesus Himself say "MOST ASSUREDLY he who believes in Me has Eternal Life"? John 6:47 So what is the problem? I'll tell you there were two problems. First he was believing in the wrong Jesus. The Jesus the Mormons have fashioned for themselves. Second, he was not assured because of those "facts" that he claimed to believe. He thought he still had to work. He hadn't had "faith in Jesus alone" so he had not "received" the Gospel. 1Cor 15:1 He believed in faith (in a fake Jesus) plus works. Of course he was not saved. He had not believed the Gospel, even though he claims to have believed several of the facts (not all, he missed the "in accordance with the Scriptures" part for example) that are part of the Gospel.

Because he had a faith (in a made up Jesus) + works religion he thinks this disproves the doctrine that one must believe the Gospel of the Christ as declared by Paul. He makes his argument by subtly changing the doctrine he is arguing against into a false doctrine which he thinks he can knock down without anyone noticing the difference.

Sorry Neff, I noticed. Even if other people haven't, I have. I also know that no matter how many have missed it, I am far from alone in this observation. This article was unconvincing in 2009, when last I read it, and it remains so even to this day. It should have faded into history, yet I hope that by giving this attack on the Gospel exposure it will somehow help others also to see what was really going on with it.

There is a reason why no one ever before the GES in 1999 ever held to this view, and why since 2009 it has all but disappeared from discussion. I suggest that it is unwise to promote this view given that it has been refuted in every way imaginable.

I don't know what this so-called "Free-Grace Gospel" is, I have believed and do preach the Gospel of the Christ. Such is the only Gospel I will preach. I have neither authority, nor freedom to preach any other.

Presuppositions of the Desert Island Scenario

Glenn, of the Wisdom and Knowledge blog has posted an article about the presuppositions of the Grace Evangelical Society's "Desert Island Scenario" which is used to explain their view of what a sinner must do to receive Eternal Life. Glenn's article is unique because of two things. First he looks at the presuppositions that one may or may not be aware of which are the foundation of the doctrine. Secondly, and of particular interest to me, is how Glenn puts the burden squarely on the evangelist, not the one receiving the message.

Here is the scenario as detailed by the late Zane Hodges.

Let me begin with a strange scenario. Try to imagine an unsaved person marooned on a tiny, uninhabited island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. He has never heard about Christianity in his life. One day a wave washes a fragment of paper up onto the beach. It is wet but still partly readable. 

 On that paper are the words of John 6:43-47. But the only readable portions are: “Jesus therefore answered and said to them” (v 43) and “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life” (v 47). 

Now suppose that our unsaved man somehow becomes convinced that this person called Jesus can guarantee his eternal future, since He promises everlasting life. In other words, he believes Jesus’ words in John 6:47. Is he saved?

So how would you answer Zane's question, and why would you answer that way? This is a subject I've discussed at great length in the past. I'm greatly concerned at the strange sudden revival of this discussion. Glenn's article is interesting and thought provoking.  I'm struggling with what to offer as a quote. There is one important point made which I consider to be brilliant. I'm not going to quote it though, I want you to benefit from it in context. So here's a different short quote:

That is the Deserted Island Scenario and it seems deceptively simple but it isn’t. That first paragraph, short as it is, is actually packed full of presuppositions which perhaps even the author was not aware of. It is my goal to help the reader find and understand them.

I hope this is just the beginning of a series of articles discussing the presuppositions of the scenario. You can read the article at the Wisdom and Knowledge blog.

A Privilege

Is this man saved?

Today I was given the opportunity to aid in the editing and honing of an article discussing the presuppositions behind the Grace Evangelical Society's "Desert Island Scenario." Over the last week or so I have gone from being surprised to being greatly concerned with this doctrine's sudden resurgence in several venues.

When the article I was privileged to help with today is published I will link to it. Can anyone explain why this topic is being discussed again all of the sudden? If it becomes an issue for the Church which is His Body again I will write on it myself.

Here's a serious question though: Why is my grammar so much improved when I'm reading someone else's work? Working with an editor is a severely humbling experience. If I could manage to improve my grammar when I'm writing my own stuff perhaps the experience would be more pleasant; like living on a desert island might be!

That is SO 2008....

After a few months of attending a house church I found out something shocking, or it finally became clear to me, or I finally opened my eyes, or I finally let myself hear what they were saying... or something! Whatever it was, I suddenly felt like I must have been going 88 Miles Per Hour because what I finally heard sounded like a repeat of the ridiculously lame, and intellectually insulting, arguments of the Grace Evangelical Society(GES) from about 2008. Update 16Apr2012: OK I can admit that this sentence is harsh. However, it is in response to being berated with the same esigesical arguments that the GES used years ago for 5 days straight.

Now I've been baited in a few ways to write an article about this assembly's doctrine. But why would I?

"The Gospel in this dispensation is to believe Jesus for Eternal Life" is the doctrine that the GES set ablaze in the Free Grace movement from 2007-9. Sure there are quotes from before that, and some small discussion after that but that is the period when the discussion was being had. Not only that but in reality the doctrine was ridiculous when it was presented by the GES and it hasn't gotten any better with age.

The doctrine failed any and every test against Scripture back then so why would anyone devote time to it now?

If anyone is truly interested in what was discussed back then these things may well be helpful:

UPDATE: Lou has posted an archived article from 2010 "Vigilance Regarding the Truth of the Gospel: Reengaging the Heresy of the GES “Crossless” Gospel, Part 1"

1. Fred Lybrand's Open Letter "Re: The GES Gospel (AKA The Crossless or Promise Only Gospel)"

2. Thomas L. Stegall's exhaustive book The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical Response to the Crossless Gospel

3. Search Google for "The Crossless Gospel"

Faith is trust, not devotion or desire

Salvation in Christ Jesus is by Grace, through Faith.

Grace is unmerited favour, or someone doing something for you that they are neither compelled to do nor you deserve.

Faith is trust that is specific. To have faith in something I need to trust it, and it's working on my specific behalf. It must be trust worthy and effectual.

The extreme Reformed position is that a person must be devoted to Christ to be saved. However, devotion does not match the meaning of Faith. It is dedication, or consecration as Dictionary.com puts it. Not trust.

The GES position would have faith be desire. I desire to be saved. So I will believe Jesus for the fulfilment of my desire.

One goes beyond faith, the other falls short of it.

It comes down to reconciliation. We are reconciled to Christ when we repent to trust Him. Both devotion and desire are natural workings of the Spirit in the life of a Believer. Neither is the basis for Salvation.

Just a quick thought. I've been very busy trying to get the manuscript finished.

An Open Letter From The President Of The FGA

*Edit: Brother Lybrand has offered to answer any questions we might have. I've copied his comment at the bottom of this post.

The (future) out-going president of the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) has released a very important open letter to the incoming president.

This letter deals with the problem of the Grace Evangelical Society's (GES) reductionist message commonly called the "Crossless Gospel" or "Promise Only Gospel." I was glad to read the official announcement from the FGA distancing themselves from the GES. Yesterday however out-going president Fred R. Lybrand DMin released a letter that contains with clarity why the FGA must remain separated from the GES.

Many people in Reformed Theology circles dismiss conversation with those in Free Grace Theology circles because of the lack of scholarship shown by GES influenced theologians. I'm thankful for this clear statement. I will now share the opening of this letter. For the complete letter please visit Lou's blog, In Defense Of The Gospel.

Released: 14 April 2009

To: Fred Chay, PhD., President Elect, Free Grace Alliance

CC: The Community of Free Grace Advocates Worldwide, for the public

From: Fred R. Lybrand, DMin, President, Free Grace Alliance

Re: The GES Gospel (aka - the ‘Crossless’ or ‘Promise-only’ Gospel)

Dear Dr. Chay,

Fred, at your request I am finally, and reluctantly, addressing the issue concerning the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) and the ‘crossless gospel’, so called. I say ‘so called’ because I would name it the GES Gospel. I am not aware of it being held by anyone, anywhere, in history; it is solely owned and promoted by GES. Of course, I am sure that when most GES folks present the gospel, they include a mention of Christ’s death and resurrection. However, when one asks, “What must one believe to be saved?” --- Then the cross and resurrection are clearly unnecessary pieces of information for saving faith and eternal salvation in the GES Gospel view. And as any objective person can see, eventually this line of thinking will invade their presentation of the saving message.

Here's our Brother's comment:

Hey Kev,

Thanks for helping get the message out. I'd love to answer any questions your readers (or you might have)might have.

Also, for the record, I am actually still the President until October's elections...and I'll remain ex officio on the FGA Council for at least the next year.

I know the letter intro gives a different impressing because of the titles established by our bylaws.

Thanks and God bless,

FRL

How We Remember The Fallen

How do we remember people who have died? Not very accurately, and not very honestly.

I have a very ungodly interest in the television series House. I can't defend my interest in the show, I just really enjoy it. The last episode of Season 4 really makes my point clear. Wilson's girlfriend, Amber, was dying. She hadn't been well liked by the team of doctors as her nick name surely attested. But as she was dying they each went to say 'goodbye' to her. When they were deciding IF they should go see her the conversation went like this:

Kutner: We should go see her.
Thirteen: We didn't even like her.
Kutner: We liked her.
Taub: Did we?
Foreman: We do today.

There really is a bit of truth about humanity depicted in this short television scene. We tend to like people much more when they are either dying or dead.

Today when I opened my email I was warned of having been mentioned by name at a blog I used to frequent. One of my good friends, and a Brother in the Lord, is being attacked by a very disorderly Brother. It was suggested by the disorderly Brother that I should separate from the orderly, but outspoken, Brother. The blog post in question follows the author's well known style making use of his ability to craft manipulative writing to such an extent to be almost the perfect example of such.

The topic is that of how we should remember Zane Hodges who died recently. Zane is a hero of the blog post author. In fact, if one were to read the blog in question one would be hard pressed to find a post there that doesn't mention (directly or by implication) Zane. I have spent a great deal of time and effort correcting and protecting against the theology taught by Zane. No where near as much time and effort as some other people though, as I'm a fairly recent addition to the scene. I'm offended by the man's recent theology but others, having been longer in the fight, are much more so.

How do we remember the fallen? We remember Solomon as the "wisest man who ever lived" right? But Solomon didn't "finish well" did he? Does the great wisdom he used in his younger years give credibility to the terrible things he did at the end? Should we honor his error because he did so much at the first? I think not, and I would be surprised if any reasonable person would.

Consider Brother Hodges then. At the first he worked to protect the idea that the "free gift of God" truly is "free." I can not describe his good work, as I have not read the things I'm told were truly good. Unfortunately for me I have only ever been exposed to his later and very disorderly teachings. In debate it's commonly accepted that whatever both sides agree on can be considered reasonably accurate. Since every person I know considers Zane's earlier works to be good, I can state that they were with reasonable assurance. I honor that which honors the Lord.

Now the blog post in question seeks to build division between my Brother and I specifically. And generally between him and several men. I feel compelled to link because I am quoting the man, but I do not in anyway endorse the reading of the linked blog. In fact I believe those who are not very well read in the Word of God should absolutely stay away. This is quoted from Unashamed of Grace.

I have found men like Kevl, ExPreacherman, David Wyatt, and Jonathan Perrault to be gracious and honorable. My advice for them is to flee associations with XXXX XXXX, for it will be of no benefit whatsoever to be identified with that man. (I have removed my Brother's name so as to avoid adding insult to injury.)

It's all well and good for someone to suggest separation. But one must be very sure that separation is required. If you are the one who is in error and are suggesting that everyone separate from the man who is pointing out your error you may want to reconsider. Are you sure yours is the Biblical response?

But it becomes all together unacceptable when words are put in someones mouth. To build credibility for his post the author quotes one WJC whom I'm unfamiliar with. The quote is strong and amusing in spots.

XX is a prime example of someone who seems to enjoy tossing around pejorative terms and assaulting Godly men like Zane Hodges - who's handling of God's word dwarfs their feeble attempts to establish a distorted view of God's free and simple grace. His speech of utter disrespect says much about his own character and what animates his obsessive attacks - certainly not the Spirit of our Lord Jesus! Such attacks are characteristic of self aggrandizing men that are afflicted with EDD - Exegetical Deficit Disorder. Their pathetic attacks will ultimately be relegated to the dustbin of errant doctrinal history. In the mean time they do serve a purpose - to show the stark contrast between Zane's thoughtful, consistent and solidly biblical views and the utter chaos that characterizes the ramblings of his detractors (such as XX). Thanks in part to God's provision of gifted men like Zane, ultimately God's light will burn through the perpetual fog thrown up by the likes of XX and those who like to parade and perpetuate his erroneous views.

This is very clever. By quoting WJC, the author is neither seen as the "authority" on the quality of Zane's teachings nor the supposed violence that my Brother does against them. Unfortunately the author does not link to or provide a reference so we can not evaluate the quote as originally used. But the author surely benefits from how he displays it.

So now with credibility "established" the author goes on to inject thoughts, intents and words into the mouths of men such as myself. For example read the following from a comment left under the blog post by the same author. I was not in attendance at the funeral so I am not directly being referenced in this quote. I will leave the daring reader who reads his entire post to evaluate if words have in deed been inserted into my mouth by the author. I think some have been.

The disparity between the likes of XXXX XXXX and some of the others who disagree with the GES is stark and arresting. The more noble came and honored Zane Hodges at his death, speaking good words about him, and remembering him for the tremendous benefits he gave to the Free Grace Theology movement. They realized how much poorer our movement would be without the seminal scholarship and Christian statesmanship of Professor Zane C. Hodges. They understand the wealth of unrivaled exegetical and expositional material left for us by this man taken before his time.

Unfortunately, I do not remember Zane in any such way. He has long since gone into error and has his teachings and followers have been preying on the Body of Christ and those who seek to become part of the Divine Salvation offered in Christ Jesus.

I honored the fact that Zane was a saved Christian despite his terrible errors when he died. His, and the GES's error about the Gospel is deadly. I can not in good conscience ignore this just because he was a Brother who did good things at some point in the past. The truth is that his error has become his legacy.

What's worse is his neo-followers are now building that error up into a mantra and using our natural inclining to respect the dead more than the living as a tool against Zane himself. Now everything good he ever did is being used to bring credibility to his error. He will, I suspect, become more and more well known for his terrible error instead of the good that he did. This is the true violence committed against Brother Hodges.

Zane Hodges home with the Lord

Zane Hodges has gone home to be with the Lord. My prayers are with his family and loved ones. Please read the statement at FaithAlone.org

Is There Any Question?

In defense of their "Redifined Free Grace Gospel" members of the GES and it's community of sympathizers will often ask this hypothetical question;

"What if a person on an tropical island is only told that Jesus will guarantee their eternal life and they believe Him for it? Is that person saved by grace through their faith in Jesus?"

Then they ask who are we mere men to say the person could not be saved? *Edit: Note the question assumes the info shared does not identify Jesus as The Christ, by His Work on the Cross, by His identity as the Son of God, by His identity of God in the flesh, nothing other than that He can and will guarantee a person's Eternal Life. *End Edit And then they state that if this person could be saved, then reception of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a requirement for Salvation. I've been overly dismissive of this question in the past. I've only paid lip-service to the topic on any occasion it's come up. However....

I was reading an article today, over at Brother Gordon's blog Heavenly Heartburn. He's getting to the "heart of the Gospel" and addressing this same question. As I took in his comments, and those of his guests I remembered a section of Scripture and a number of things hit me about this question I have so often heard asked by the people mentioned above.

Mark 4:21-25 came to me.

21 Also He said to them, “Is a lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed? Is it not to be set on a lampstand? 22 For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light. 23 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”
24 Then He said to them, “Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given. 25 For whoever has, to him more will be given; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.”

And then I thought about the Eunuch that Philip was translated to preach to in Acts 8

26 Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, “Arise and go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is desert. 27 So he arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 was returning. And sitting in his chariot, he was reading Isaiah the prophet. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot.”
30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 The place in the Scripture which he read was this:

“ He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;
And as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
33 In His humiliation His justice was taken away,
And who will declare His generation?
For His life is taken from the earth.”

34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea.

Now the thoughts were really coming... and I thought of Romans 1:18-24 (actually I was thinking all the way to verse 32, but up to 24 serves my purposes just fine)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

And I began to see how God has revealed Himself in Creation, and on the Cross, and how He works with people all fits into this dilemma. That the Cross was a "public spectacle" where the Light of the World was lifted up on a Lampstand. That no one puts a lamp away, but instead they lift it up on a lampstand to make it completely visible.

See God gives people up to foolishness and His wrath is revealed through this when they disregard the revelation He gives us. But when we "receive" any of this revelation. If we "have ears to hear" or "eyes to see" and we do receive what He is revealing then He will give more. Even if it takes sending an Angel to an Evangelist to get someone to the person so they can hear "beginning with" where ever they are but ending up with the full preaching of Christ to them. Just like in Acts 8:35. And having had a preacher sent to them, and having heard (received), they can have faith and be saved unto Eternal Life.

Because the REAL questions, the ones we find in Scripture that relate EXACTLY to this subject are found in Romans 10:13-17;

13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

“ How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

When I ask "Is there any question?" the answer is these questions;

How can they call on Him if they have not believed? And how can they believe in Him if they have not heard? How shall they hear without a Preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?

The false premise of the question asked by the GES and it's sympathizers assumes that God will not give further revelation to the person who is seeking. But everything we know about our Graceful God tells us otherwise. We are told that "he who seeks will find" and we are told that God put Christ's work on the Cross on public display. We are shown that God will send the preacher to the one who has received just the little bit they are given.

The idea that God would allow someone who is seeking to go without the full Gospel is repugnant and reduces God to a mere idol, powerless to carry out what He has promised to do.

I can say, based solely on Scriptures, that it is impossible to believe in what you have not been told, and that it is reception of the Gospel that brings about Salvation, and that any who have not believed will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire.