Free Grace Follow-Through
To All:
Last week I posted The Teachings of Zane Hodges. One man, (Antonio da Rosa) who is very supportive of the Grace Evangelical Society, but doctrinally is well outside the main stream of the Free Grace community at large, did not appreciate it very much. He took exception in a single comment following the article.
Despite my best efforts here, and at another site where Antonio is a contributor, I have not been able to encourage him to interact with me on a two-way basis in regard to Hodges, Repentance and Free Grace theology. There has, however, been an up side.
First, Antonio posted his reply to my article at Unashamed of Grace (UoG) where he is a contributor. Several folks who frequent UoG are meeting me for the first time Several have contacted me through private e-mails as a result.
Second, I have been posting comments and questions at Unashamed of Grace. I think you may find my comments there worth reading. You’ll find some interacting with me, or speaking about me, my book and the Lordship Salvation issue. It seems my article on Hodges raised the level of discussion, and I mean that in a positive way.
Presently I am developing the second article on why I have kept the theology of Hodges at arm’s length in my work on the Lordship controversy.
In the meantime, visit Unashamed of Grace see the June 7 article that bears my name in the title, and scroll through the comments section.
You may find my interaction with the Free Grace advocates over there interesting.
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeletethanks for the comment on my blog. I will get your book and have bookmarked your site. thanks.
I look forward to reading your thoughts.
Mike
Mike:
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by. I hope you find some helpful items here.
Take care,
Lou
Lou,
ReplyDeleteI just ordered your book and am looking forward to it.
Glenn W.
Hi Glenn:
ReplyDeleteThanks for letting me know. I trust it will be a blessing and help to you.
Feel free to let me know your impressions.
Yours in Him,
LM
Lou, I wrote you an email, Sunday, June 17:
ReplyDeleteHey Lou,
I found one question really directed at me, and Matthew answered it. I do wish to dialogue on the repentance thread. Will you be a pal and make me a concise comment that identifies for me everything you want me to respond to before you we dialogue on the repentance thread?
Blessings,
Antonio
To which I got no reply. Was this merely an oversight on your part?
Antonio:
ReplyDeleteYou posted one long note after my June 7 article on Zane Hodges. I directed numerous posts back to your attention both here and at UnAshamed of Grace (UAoG) where you copied and pasted your note at my site as an article there.
In both threads I posted notes, comments and questions to you persoanlly, that you chose to and continue to ignore.
Your claim that Matthew answered a question does not absolve or excuse your post and disappearance. BTW, there is more than a question to you, I provided substantiation that you demanded, asked for your comment, and you are nowhere to be found.
BTW, you are mistaken thinking I directed one question to you. The number is five! I also made three open appeals to you asking for you to respond and interact. These are in the June 7 thread. You have ignored all of this. There may be more at UAoG, but I am not counting those at this time.
I did not miss your e-mail I feel no need or obligation to reply because you have been on a one-way street since your single reply and disappearance to my June 7 article on ZH.
Go back to both threads, reply in your own words to what I directed to you personally, and then we can move to a new topic.
LM
Antonio:
ReplyDeleteI left two questions and two appeals for you at UnAshamed of Grace (UAoG). You have responded to none of them.
Intsead you came back to UAoG with a new series of questions for me, which I answered.
Do you have intention of addressing the questions/comments I directed to you personally here at my blog or at UAoG?
Please advise.
LM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(This post from Antonio has been Edited and reposted.)
ReplyDeleteLou,
I am asking for you to give me something concise so that I can respond to everything you desire.
I read over your material and I am not sure what exactly what you want me to respond to. It was a sincere request.
I seriously cannot see any question that remains to be answered. This is why I am asking for you to give me a list of exactly that which you want me to respond to and questions you wish for me to answer.
I am willing to be very verbose in my responses and answers. I must first understand exactly what you want from me.
You ask do I have intention of addressing your comments and answers. I do. Please make them clear for me.
I believe that this could be a beneficial exchange.
I would even consider having a debate with you on free grace theology, your brand vs. mine. That would really show the distinctives and contrasts.
Blessings,
Antonio
Antonio:
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I am not going to allow you to call into question my motives and tone. If you want to do that send me a private e-mail.
I was going to delete your previous post, but I edited it instead, in the hope we can get somewhere.
Later, I will get back to you on your post above.
LM
Antonio:
ReplyDeleteI did note that you are making an effort to be gracious and I appreciate it.
LM
Antonio:
ReplyDeleteAbove you wrote, "I am asking for you to give me something concise so that I can respond to everything you desire.
I read over your material and I am not sure what exactly what you want me to respond to. It was a sincere request."
The following six questions to you appear in the thread under my June 7 article: The Teachings of Zane Hodges. I can see how they may have been missed.
I just reposted them in that thread for your response. I will look there for any reply you might post.
LM
1) Presenting the cross is not an “orthodox doctrinal checklist” per se, but I had better be part of the plan of salvation. If He is not the crucified, and risen Lord, Who is He to a lost man?
So, may I ask: Do you believe a lost man can be born again who has not come to an understanding that Jesus died (was crucified) to pay the penalty of his sin?
2) You asked, “Can you point to me once verse in the whole of the gospel that plainly declares one must have as the conscious content of saving faith the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in addition to believing Christ's promise to impart eternal life to the believer in Him for it?”
It appears you feel that the cross and resurrection are not necessary to lead a lost man to Christ. At least not necessary for him to be conscious of it. Is that what you are saying?
3) Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I read you elsewhere claim that because the word “repent” is not in John’s gospel it (repentance) is not an integral part of the gospel message to the lost? I am paraphrasing from memory, but I have read that from you or another man not long ago. Do I have that right?
4) It appears that for Hodges very few “facts about Christ” are necessary for salvation. You can read where he says, “…anyone who trusts Christ for eternal life is born again…. Jesus can be believed for eternal salvation apart from any detailed knowledge of what He did to provide it.”
According to what Hodges wrote a lost man needs only to believe in Jesus for eternal salvation (security?) and that is enough. He expresses no sense of urgency or importance over the details of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.
When I read those quotes again, I am seeing Hodges call for a VERY mere mental assent/agreement about eternal salvation and that, for Hodges, is enough knowledge for the lost man to believe and thereby be saved.
Would you agree that “eternal salvation” is a, “concept that must be theologically clarified before it can really be understood”?
5) You wrote (to another), “In his (Lou's) efforts to sound diplomatic, he mediates between Lordship Salvation and Free Grace theology, distancing himself from the faith alone doctrine of Free Grace theology. To make him look good to the Lordship Advocates, he has made their enemy his enemy, so to speak.”
In all honesty, do you think there is anything I could say pro-MacArthur or Anti-Hodges that would change my critic’s personal opinions of what I wrote and me?
6) I wrote, “There is, however, a serious problem in that Hodges drastically minimizes repentance in the conversion experience. Hodges contends that repentance is merely a mental acknowledgement, and not necessarily a change of mind.”
You directed this question to me: “Do you back this up with substantiation?”
Here is Hodges from Harmony with God, “I myself once held the ‘change of mind’ view of repentance and taught it. But the Scriptures have persuaded me otherwise.”
I have just backed it up. Now, may I ask you: Did I misrepresent Hodges?
I will respond to all these questions tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteI think that after I do, though, we should have some form of debate over them. That way the srtrong points of each of our positions as well as the weak ones can be identified.
Antonio
For the record:
ReplyDeleteAntonio has a pattern of moving from blog-to-blog.
I have asked him an important question(s) above and he has not been back to this thread anyway to reply.
He may have elsewhere, but I am not certain of it.
LM