September 23, 2008

Hodges’s Hydra Head Article Under Additional Review

Dear Guests:

In recent days at my blog there have been some helpful reviews posted on Zane Hodges’s article
The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism which appears in the current Grace in Focus (GIF) newsletter.

There are more reviews on the way. Rachel from
Pursuit of Truth is preparing a review that I am sure will be powerful. I have an article prepared that not only touches on some of the extremes in the article, but I also comment on what obviously has become Grace Evangelical Society’s (GES) fight to cling to what little life or credibility they have left in the Free Grace community. Today, however, I want to highlight two brief reactions to the Hodges article. These reviews appear in my article Major Development in Zane Hodges’s “Crossless” Gospel. In order you will read reviews by Brothers Gordon Cloud and Art Sims. Afterward, I will offer a brief closing commentary.

On Sunday night Brother Gordon Cloud of the
Heavenly Heartburn blog requested a copy of Zane Hodges’s article, The Hydra’s Other Head. Brother Gordon returned to the thread under, Major Development in Zane Hodges’s “Crossless” Gospel with a brief review. I will follow with some personal commentary.
Brother Lou:

I found a number of things in the article that caused me some concern.

1. I felt that Hodges used some
extreme semantical gymnastics in a couple of areas. First, in his connection between Lordship Salvation and what he calls “theological legalism.” Second, his divorce of the “content of saving faith” from “the Gospel” has me scratching my head.

2. I believe he is using some
poor hermeneutical technique where the Gospel of John is concerned. He accuses others of “picking and choosing,” yet he himself ignores the majority of the New Testament concerning the Gospel. It is almost as if he places John in contrast with other NT writers rather than viewing his writings as complementary to the rest of the canon.

3. He uses some
obvious straw man arguments. I know of no one who believes the Gospel who is uncomfortable with John. Also he makes quite a leap from the “doctrinal checklist” of I Cor. 15:1-8 to another list of about eight items.

4. His
pseudo-intellectual attempt to use the Greek language to explain away the priority of I Cor. 15:1-8 only proves the point he is trying to disprove. Then he convolutes his argument by his attempt to draw the line between the Gospel and saving faith.

Thanks again for sending the article to me.
In less than 30 minutes Brother Cloud read and was able to make these penetrating observations about the article by Hodges. Yet, you have his followers praising the article appearing to have no comprehension of the article’s obvious flaws. It is unfortunate that the few who still cling to Hodges’s Crossless gospel just can’t see, as easily and quickly as Brother Cloud recognized, the errors of the Hodges’s reductionist interpretation of the Gospel and the faulty methods with which he and his advocates arrive at their conclusions.

Some who read these discussions over the GES’s “
Crossless” gospel may not be aware that Crossless advocates insist that the term “the Gospel” has no technical meaning that the lost must believe to be born again. See The Technical Meaning of the Term, “THE GOSPEL”.

Hodges does more than “ignore the majority of the New Testament.” Hodges and his followers negate and/or dismiss any passage in the NT that upsets their reductionist approach to the Gospel. They go to the Bible attempting force into, negate and/or extract from it whatever they must to keep their reductionist interpretation of the Gospel in tact.

Now, please continue reading the review submitted by Brother Art Sims.
Lou, I’ve read the PDF copy of Hodges’s article. Thanks for making it available. I’ve also seen that Wilkin wrote an accompanying article (What’s your First Sentence in Evangelism), which after also reading, two things stand out to me.

First, I think Wilkin’s article contains a
lame attempt to satisfy grace people who disagree with him.

Second, Hodges’s article presses their case. I am struck by Bob Wilkin’s remark where he says, “
That may well be.” He acknowledges that some will object to what he suggests because no one could believe in Jesus for eternal life without knowing about His death and resurrection. And to this he replies, “That may well be,” (pg.4). Surprise! But immediately, he explains his reason for saying this is because he has never met a born again person who didn’t believe Jesus died for our sins.

When I saw this remark, “
That may well be,” I wondered why he wanted to make this point, and concluded: to indulge those who disagree with him. And I think this is clever, having as its intent, help for opponents of his message to excuse his teachings if they just somehow would. With this, we are given Hodges’s article in which he asserts that Jesus never conditioned eternal life on believing he died for our sins (pg.3), and with John’s Gospel being written late, no one today has to believe he died for our sins either.

No indulging of his opponents by Hodges. I have found Hodges far from persuasive for three major reasons.

1) He rejects the distinctness of the gospel Christ gave to Paul, holding instead that the gospel Christ preached during his earthly ministry and committed to his Jewish apostles is exactly the same gospel he later reappeared from heaven to give to Paul for us today. That handling of Scripture makes no sense to me (
John 6:47, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 compare with Gal. 1:11,12, Gal. 2:7, 1 Cor. 1:17) and so I don’t find him persuasive.

2) Faith is reduced to passive agreement with information (much like the famous atheist
Robert Ingersoll argued in defending unbelief over a century ago) whereas my understanding of faith is knowledge, volition and trust (“whosoever will, let him take”).

3) Hodges sees John’s Gospel as a stand alone message of eternal salvation, and written late being proof that no change ever took place regarding the content of saving faith since even before the cross. I just don’t see John’s Gospel that way.

Interestingly, Wilkin argues in his
GIF article that few people could be found in the USA today who don’t already know about Jesus’ death and resurrection, and with this, (Wilkin) communicates that this doesn’t have to be stated. If so, how can he think John had to state this for people to know it?

When John wrote his Gospel, Paul’s gospel had already been widely preached so that John's readers would already know belief in Christ involved the well known teachings Paul’s gospel had been advancing.

Lou, thanks so much for continuing on in your labors against the
Crossless message.
Friends, it is a sad tragedy to read how the shrinking cell of GES followers have been deceived by the egregious errors coming from Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin. I have read some comments by the few left who openly support these egregious errors coming from GES. In spite of the teachings of Hodges and Wilkin being quite obviously antithetical to the Scriptures their followers bow in adoration to virtually any reductionist assault on the Gospel and Person of Christ that GES instigates upon these precious truths.
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears,” (*Acts 20:28-31).
Zane Hodges is a modern day example of what the Apostle Paul, “with tears,” warned believers to “take heed” and be wary of. From within the body of Christ, Hodges has risen and drifted into increasingly deeper and more extreme doctrinal errors. The distortion, twisting, redefining or dismissal of numerous clear passages of Scripture has been the hallmark of Hodges’s “Crossless” gospel. Bob Wilkin has fallen head long into Hodges’s trap of errors. Wilkin’s Grace Evangelical Society has become the prime instigator of these extremist views that, until Hodges’s articulated them, have never been introduced to the New Testament church.

We should continue to pray that these, who have been deceived and/or work to lend credibility to the heresy of the
Crossless gospel, can be recovered from these errors. We need to take heed of, watch, warn and pray as the Apostle Paul taught so that not one more unsuspecting believer will be drawn away from a biblical balance on the Gospel toward the Crossless/Deityless gospel of the Grace Evangelical Society.


LM

*See
Perverse Things Draw Away Disciples for an extended discussion of Acts 20:28-31.

* I have a PDF copy of Hodges’s article. You may request it from me via e-mail. I will need your full name before I will send a copy.

38 comments:

  1. To All:

    I trust you appreciate these reviews. Be sure to read the Review by Bob Nyberg that I introduced in the previous article.

    I have read comments by some who are advocates and/or supporters of the Crossless gospel. It is sad to see their blindness to just how egregious this reductionist teaching is coming from Hodges, Wilkin and GES.

    One person who claims to be disappointed with the Crossless gospel article by Hodges insists this is merely boils down to, “a difference of opinion that is acceptable.” It seems that the major concern some have with the article is not so much with what was written, mostly with how it was written.

    The Crossless gospel is radical departure from a balanced view of the Gospel. It is tragic to witness the presence of New Evangelical tendencies toward preferring unity with erring brethren who are teaching heresy ahead of fidelity to God’s Word, which forbids such an unholy alliance.

    Do not listen to the voices of those who desire to lend credibility to the GES’s “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  2. Amen Lou. Praise God for your clear voice here and unwaivering stand. I have witnessed a back and forth over this for many months but your position has been breathtakingly consistent. I know where you stand brother and that is by the cross. His death is our only way to life. I pray some of the FG'rs that have rejected the importance of the cross here will continue to repent and seek His face here.

    Grace upon grace,

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian:

    I appreciate your passion for the defense of the Gospel.

    You might want to revise your comment, this part, “I pray some of the FG’rs that have rejected the importance of the cross here will continue to repent and seek His face here.”

    The FG’rs in GES have not rejected the cross personally. They do believe in the cross of Christ. The problem and crux of the controversy is that they have rejected the necessity of the lost being aware of and believing in the finished work of Christ on the cross (and His resurrection) for salvation.

    That would be a fair and accurate statement.

    This is why the GES interpretation of the Gospel is appropriately labeled the “Crossless” gospel. Not to mention at this time, “Deityless” as well.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very important that you clarify that Lou and I understand why you would rightfully be concerned by that statement, but I still have seen some comments by some free gracers out here that have really come close in their own rhetoric in sounding like they reject the cross and that is why it has come across to me that way. They need to take care in what they say as well.

    Thank you for your understanding reproof. I really don't feel like going over some of the horrible comments they have made over the past year or so as I don't have time, but they truly need to take very close care of the words they use as well if they are going to reproof us for so doing.

    I will use more care in the future when I address how far this heresy is calling us away from the truth.

    Grace upon grace,

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  5. One other thing brother Lou. What am I supposed to think when I see a FG commenter, who posts here frequently, comment at Dave's blog while he was reviewing this whole issue and boast that her salvation experience was both crossless and deityless. What am I supposed to gather from that?

    Is it not logical to conclude this?

    Still I will heed your caution although I will let you know that I am deeply grieved that men and women make this matter to be so trifling when it should be all that we are and now am in Him. How tragic this is.

    Grace upon grace,

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  6. For Zion's sake I cannot keep silent. Oh what a price was paid and oh how we have made so trifle our first love. Oh may God's Holy Spirit consume our souls and wake us up.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Brian:

    You wrote, "What am I supposed to think when I see a FG commenter, who posts here frequently, comment at Dave's blog while he was reviewing this whole issue and boast that her salvation experience was both crossless and deityless. What am I supposed to gather from that?."

    Well, that was some odd reading indeed. Dave and others were quite concerned with those remarks. BTW, she is no longer allowed to post here for various reasons.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  8. yeah but my point also is that Rose seem to herald this type of approach and these commenter's as being good and then she turns around and rebukes us in her public post about comments. What are we supposed to think when the statements that some of these who claim to be free gracer's make?

    Ah well, I will let this go for now and still believe you are right that I take care in making broadbrushing statements. It seems that they force us to play by rules they make up that they themselves are not willing to keep.

    Grace upon grace,

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lou,

    These reviews of are all very insightful. If your guests are interested in an exegetical examination of Hodges' main argument, they may like to read this review: The Hydra's Other Head: Theological Minimalism.

    JP

    ReplyDelete
  10. JP:

    Thanks for the link to your review of the Hodges article. There are more reviews on the way and I will kep guests notified as they come available.

    I am also looking forward to the article being developed by Dave of the Free Grace Believer blog. He will be discussing the reductionist teachings of Hodges, Wilkin and GES in their Crossless interpretation of the Gospel.

    As I noted in this article:

    Zane Hodges is a modern day example of what the Apostle Paul, “with tears,” warned believers to “take heed” and be wary of. From within the body of Christ, Hodges has risen and drifted into increasingly deeper and more extreme doctrinal errors. The distortion, twisting, redefining or dismissal of numerous clear passages of Scripture has been the hallmark of Hodges’s “Crossless” gospel.

    We need to take heed of, watch, warn and pray as the Apostle Paul taught so that not one more unsuspecting believer will be drawn away from a biblical balance on the Gospel into Crossless/Deityless gospel of the Grace Evangelical Society.


    These mounting reviews will help awaken more to the egregious errors of the GES’s interpretation of the Gospel.

    One can almost be grateful for Hodges writing his reactionary Hydra Head article. It has helped in a great way to clearly identify some of the elements that are so very wrong in such a way that they are now more discernable now than we have seen in recent years.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear Guests:

    Recent days have yielded some interesting discussions over the Grace Evangelical Society’s (GES) ”Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel. The article by Zane Hodges has exposed a raw nerve and he is obviously gone to war against the FGA and any believer who rejects his reductionist interpretation of the Gospel. The message from GES is this: If you and not of Zane Hodges’s “Crossless” gospel you are not Free Grace.

    From the sympathizers with and supporters of the Crossless gospel you can read complaints about labels and tone. Rarely do you find those who claim to have a problem with this teaching stating in unvarnished terms exactly what they find antithetical to Scripture with the reductionist views coming from the teaching of Zane Hodges. Even when you do find an expression of disagreement it is coupled with praise for the teacher(s) of the heresy.

    Appreciation for past blessing is no excuse for tolerance, support and sympathy with the current radical departures from orthodoxy we are witnessing by Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the GES.

    This is the pattern of one who simply cannot bring him/herself to have an open break over a deviation from the Scriptures on a major doctrine. This is the methodology of the New Evangelical like compromiser: Unity with known and vital error at the expense of doctrine. This is the cry of compromise. There are non-essentials that one can have disagreements over and maintain fellowship. The Gospel, however, is NOT one of them!

    Imagine knowing that the teaching of Hodges insists that the lost man does not have to be aware of, know, understand or believe in the cross, resurrection or deity of Christ, but can still be born again by belief in a promise form whomever he thinks Jesus may be. Imagine knowing these extremist teachings include the absurd teaching that a lost Mormon or JW who openly rejects the deity of Christ can be born again in spite of that rejection.

    Take those egregious errors of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin- call them mere “theory,” a “doctrinal nuance” and a “difference of opinion that is acceptable,” and you have the mindset and behavior of the New Evangelical. You can be sure you are reading the heart of a New Evangelical mindset. This is the compromise of putting friendship ahead of fidelity to God and His Word.

    Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin. . . . To pursue union at the price of truth is treason to the Lord Jesus.” (Charles H. Spurgeon: The Drift of the Times)


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  13. goe:

    While I am grateful you have seen and been recovered from the obvious errors of Lordship Salvation it is highly unfortunate you appear (from the reading I’ve done elsewhere) to have been deceived by and fallen into the trap of the equally heretical Crossless/Deityless message of Zane Hodges and the GES.

    Lord willing, you will read material here at my blog. May I suggest:

    False Paradigms of the “Crossless” Gospel

    Is “REDEFINED” Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?

    Especially read the series by Pastor Tom Stegall titled, The Tragedy of the “Crossless” Gospel available at the Grace Family Journal.

    I would also encourage you to seek out fellowship with the Free Grace Alliance and ONLY its members who do NOT subscribe to the Crossless gospel. Lord willing within a few months the few remaining Crossless gospel advocates in the FGA will accept the obvious meaning of the FGA’s Covenant and graciously depart.

    I am hopeful you can be recovered from the reductionist extremes you have been exposed to from the GES and its followers.

    I have deleted your comment until I have time to further review it in light of your recent public support for the Crossless gospel of Hodges/GES plus the radical views of some of its most extreme advocates and sympathizers.

    I am more militant about not allowing for the subtle introduction of the Crossless gospel or Lordship Salvation at my blog.

    I want to provide the biblical answers to these twin departures from the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ. I do not want to provide a pulpit for the advocates of and sympathizers with the Crossless gospel or Lordship Salvation.

    In closing I want you and all my guests to understand that the advocates of the Crossless gospel have ceased to be of any use in the doctrinal debate against Lordship Salvation (LS). To come to the debate against LS from the reductionist errors of the Crossless gospel only serves to give the advocates of LS a ripe and legitimate target for attack, which undermines the defense against Lordship’s works based assault on the Gospel.

    Kind regards,


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear Guests:

    Earlier I temporarily deleted a comment posted by goe. I am reproducing it in the next comment for your consideration.

    I have asked some of my blog partners to interact on the question, if they have time. I am out of time for the day.

    One of my blog partners made this observation. “I think we should keep in mind that many followers of fringe (being nice here) teachers have not been exposed to how to test theological positions. They are ‘children’ in the Faith and are easily persuaded. If we can do so without harming others, we should draw these by clear exegesis towards our Biblical point of view. Hopefully we can help them to see that the murky waters of reasoned theology can be cleared by simple readings in the Text.

    That said, Mr. goe, you are welcome to participate here, but I will be careful not to let my blog be drawn into a Crossless gospel promoter’s agenda.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  15. To All:

    Mr. goe posted the following at 11:06am...

    Can anyone here answer a question for me?

    I have been looking for a reference to the finished work of Christ in the book of Acts. I know the FACT that He was crucified and raised from the dead is stated many times, but I do not find a single verse that attempts to give even a basic explanation of the redemptive significance of His death. Maybe I'm missing it. Since the substitutionary atonement is the basis for our salvation, it seems odd that there would not be a single reference to it in any of the sermons preached to unbelievers or by Luke himself. The epistles seem to be the only place where we find His finished work on the cross actually explained, but they were written to people who were already saved and had eternal life. The main issue in Acts seems to be that Jesus is the Christ, and His resurrection is proclaimed as the proof of that. That's the same message as the Gospel of John, where His death and resurrection is the 8th and greatest "sign" that Jesus is the Christ. Anyway, can anyone point me to a verse in Acts where the meaning of His death is explained to unbelievers. I'm obviously not saying that we shouldn't explained it, but why is it not done in Acts?

    I would appreciate any help you can give me. God bless you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Goe,

    You asked:

    "Anyway, can anyone point me to a verse in Acts where the meaning of His death is explained to unbelievers. I'm obviously not saying that we shouldn't explained it, but why is it not done in Acts? I would appreciate any help you can give me."

    You obviously have a misunderstanding of Paul's glorious gospel, and Paul's preaching in Acts. In 1 Corinthians 15:11 the apostle Paul notes that all the apostles preached the same gospel message, the good news of Christ's finished work - including His substitutionary death (1 Cor. 15:3). This gospel was Paul's constant theme to believer and unbeliever alike, even in the book of Acts (Acts 14:7, 15:7, 16:10, 20:24).

    Furthermore, we have the story of Philip preaching the gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:25-40. We must remember that the gospel truth of Christ's death for our sins is "according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3). Therefore, it is perfectly consistent for Philip to explain the gospel message in terms of the prophecy found in Isaiah 53 (Acts 8:32-35). As a result of Philip's gospel preaching the Eunuch was saved and baptized as a new believer (Acts 8:36-40; cf. Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-17).

    In light of 1 Corinthians 15:11, it is not surprising that John in his Gospel also declares the substitutionary death of Christ (Jn. 1:29, 1:35-36, 3:10-17, 6:47-54, 10:7-18, 11:47-53, 12:32-33, 18:14, and 20:19-23).

    JP

    ReplyDelete
  17. JP:

    I appreciate this note to goe, “Furthermore, we have the story of Philip preaching the gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:25-40. We must remember that the gospel truth of Christ's death for our sins is "according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3). Therefore, it is perfectly consistent for Philip to explain the gospel message in terms of the prophecy found in Isaiah 53 (Acts 8:32-35). As a result of Philip's gospel preaching the Eunuch was saved and baptized as a new believer (Acts 8:36-40; cf. Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-17).”

    What I want to very briefly note is the context of the portion I bolded. If we look at the text, we read, “When Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him,” (Acts 8:35-38).

    Again, this has to brief, but I have written more extensively on this. Now, goe, please watch this. Look at the bolded sections in the passage from Acts 8.

    Philip preached who unto him? Jesus.

    The eunuch desired baptism, but what did Philip condition baptism on? Belief.

    Belief in what? Belief in what he (Philip) had been preaching to him, which was Jesus.

    The eunuch said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

    The eunuch’s answer provides a stark example of how Hodges and Wilkin have stripped saving faith of its necessary content.

    Are you aware that the GES men insist the Lord’ titles, “the Christ” and “Son of God” do not mean or infer His deity?

    The GES men insist these are NON-deity titles. Why? Because they reject the biblical, teaching the lost must believe that Jesus is the “Son of God” in the sense that He is deity.

    So, when they come to Acts 8, which clearly shows that Philip conditioned baptism on the affirmation that this man believed the evangelistic message, the GOSPEL, which included the deity of Christ, they have to assault the Lord’s deity by stripping His titles of their obvious meaning.

    This is probably the single most offensive teaching coming from GES. They have a great deal of nerve to assault and undermine the Lord’s titles for the purpose of propping up the reductionist views of Zane Hodges.

    I am hopeful you have not fully succumbed to the teaching of Hodges and his followers. Lord willing, this will awaken you to not only think again, but to flee from their teaching post-haste.

    There are many men in the Free Grace community that have not fallen into the tragic reductionism coming from Hodges and Wilkin. I am hopeful you are not going to be the next casualty of this egregious errors from GES.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  18. If I may I would like to add another point to JP's and Lou's last comments concerning the gospel in Acts.

    We can look at Peter's message in the second chapter as well as other discourses offered by him and Stephen to the Jews. These messages gave strong reference to Jesus' fulfillment of Messianic prophecies, many of which taught the doctrine of substitutionary atonement (Isaiah is one who comes to mind).

    Based upon this, we can conclude that the Jews who placed faith in Jesus Christ would have done so with an understanding of the meaning of His crucifixion and resurrection.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Lou,

    You said:

    "So, when they come to Acts 8, which clearly shows that Philip conditioned baptism on the affirmation that this man believed the evangelistic message, the GOSPEL, which included the deity of Christ, they have to assault the Lord’s deity by stripping His titles of their obvious meaning.

    This is probably the single most offensive teaching coming from GES. They have a great deal of nerve to assault and undermine the Lord’s titles for the purpose of propping up the reductionist views of Zane Hodges."


    Placing the Deity of Christ on the "back burner" in evangelism is a true tragedy. Crossless gospel advocates are sure to lose rewards at the judgment seat of Christ for grossly mishandling the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15), trampling under foot the Son of God (Heb. 10:29), and giving a false assurance to unbelievers (Jn. 8:19-24).

    Although crossless gospel advocates claim their evangelism is "consistent" with that of Jesus in the Gospel of John, nothing could be further from the truth. I have exposed this inconsistency in the article Consistent Free Grace Evangelism?

    JP

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hello Goe,
    My view is different. I'm not speaking here for Lou or any others, only myself. But I do have a viewpoint that I and several hundred preachers I know find helpful. I think you are correct in observing that the book of Acts doesn't record any preaching by anybody that Christ died for our sins. Rather, it's the Epistles, written during the Acts period, and afterward, that define for us what Paul preached and what the other apostles preached too (once they learned Paul's gospel from him - Gal. 2:2). I don't see John's Gospel or any other book of the Bible as written to unbelievers. (See John 1:16.) Instead, the norm for reaching unsaved people is for us as believers to testify what we know, as "ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man" (1 Cor. 3:5). Thus, God's written word is not addressed to unsaved people but believers, confirming us and building us up and instructing us in our testimony and walk. So I would say, you don't need the book of Acts (or the Gospel of John as some think) to establish that we should tell people Christ died for our sins. Of course we should tell them that, for we are ambassadors for Christ, urging reception of the reconciliation provided through Him who knew no sin being made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him, 2nd Cor. 5:20,21. I readily confess, if the book of Acts is a manual for evangelism, I'm confused. But instead, I see the Acts as a book of history, recording for us the years of transition from God's dealings with Israel nationally to the full turning over of ministry to Gentiles at Acts 28:28. It's the Epistles, Acts-period and post-Acts, that give us our message and ministry. That's how I see things and is why the book of Acts with its record of happenings isn't troubling to me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Goe,

    I would agree with Art that Acts is a transitional book. I would be very hesitant to build a doctrine on the book of Acts to the exclusion of the epistles.

    As Art indicated, we must understand the kerygmatic passages in Acts in light of 1 Cor. 15:1-11. It is the gospel truths found in 1 Cor. 15:1-11 that are said to be "of first importance" in Apostolic preaching.

    JP

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jumping in without having read the entire conversation - if I'm off base just ignore me. I'll get the hint. :)

    Acts is a historical book - "The Acts Of The Apostles" being the common title for this portion of Scripture.

    We can glean application of truth here but actual doctrinal teaching is very limited.

    For example, we're told of the Jailer who asked "What must I do to be saved?" with the reply being "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" and then we are told they "spoke the word of the Lord to him and his family" We're not told the content of what was told the man. But we can discern through the rest of the NT what the content of "the word of the Lord" was.

    What we see here is not the doctrine the man had to believe, but the application of that doctrine and the surety that belief is what is required for Salvation.

    Acts can not be divorced from church doctrine, but we must always be sure to get church doctrine from the source who was sent to give it - Paul. All scripture is valuable, but Paul's job was to reveal the mystery that had been hidden in Christ since before time. Namely, the Church of the Living God.

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  23. One needs to be careful using Acts 8:37 to build too much doctine on. There is considerable doubt this verse was in the original manuscripts.

    It does not show up in Greek texts until about the 7th century. Then it begins showing up after the 10th century.

    It is not in any of the Papyri which includ the book of Acts; including P45 which is dated to about the 3rd century.

    The editorial committee is unanimous in their determination that this verse is not in the original by their use of an {A} before the footnote.

    This info is from footnotes in the critical apparatus "The Greek New Testament", Fourth Revised Edition, United Bible Societies, 1998.

    See page 438 for the footnotes; and pages 7,8, 16-18 of the introduction for manuscript dates. See page 3 for how the committee marks their textual decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  24. otunaep:

    Thanks for the comment, you wrote, “One needs to be careful using Acts 8:37 to build too much doctrine on.”

    My primary goal was not to build a great deal of doctrine off the single verse. My point was to demonstrate one of the reductionist errors coming from Hodges and Wilkin that is antithetical to the Scriptures.

    There are, of course, many more passages of Scripture that teach the necessity of belief in the deity of Christ for salvation. The GES insists that the lost do not need to be aware of, know, understand or believe in His deity (not to mention His Cross and Resurrection), but can still be born again.

    That was my primary goal in picking up on JP's reference to Acts 8.

    Thanks again,


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  25. JP/Kevl/Art:

    Thanks for providing answers for goe (Gary).

    I trust his reading these notes will be used of the Lord to begin recovering him from the errors of the GES's Crossless gospel that he has been exposed to.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Gary:

    I will review your last, lengthy comment.

    I will determine what to do with it once I have my concluded my review.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  28. Lou,

    After reading Gary's reply it is clear that he side-stepped our arguments and Paul's definitive declaration of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Instead of interacting with 1 Cor. 15:1-11, Gary simply stated "that for Paul and all the Apostles, the 'gospel' they preached was not limited to His death and resurrection, but included any and every truth about Jesus Christ, even going back into the Old Testament itself." Gary attempts to dump virtually the entire Bible into Paul's definition of the gospel, all in stark contrast to 1 Corinthians 15:1-11! As I said, Gary "obviously [has] a misunderstanding of Paul's glorious gospel." Gary dismisses 1 Cor. 15:1-11 with a virtual wave of the hand and denies that it has any relevance to Paul's concept of the gospel because the Apostles didn't "travel around reading and handing out gospel tracts"! Where does the Bible say the Apostles had to distribute gospel tracts? Instead of canvasing, 1 Cor. 15:1-11 clearly emphasizes the Apostle's preaching (1 Cor. 15:1,11). All the Apostles preached the same gospel message of eternal life in Christ (1 Cor. 15:3-5, 19-26). Unfortunately, Gary has "been heavily influenced by the teaching of GES" and therefore does not "hold fast" to Paul's Gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-2; cf. 1 Cor. 11:1-2).

    JP

    ReplyDelete
  29. Brother Lou,

    It troubles me that I am seeing a lot of comments out here in blogdome to the tone that sounds as if other believers are comparing themselves to you and thinking better of themselves than you. It is an unfortunate thing. I truly wish people would get past that and see the importance of all of this. In the past three years of blogging I have seen(including some of these bloggers that are comparing their character to yours and thinking more highly of themselves), them truly having done things that have not been honorable to the Lord and some ruthless things to where I sometimes wish I would have saved some comments of some of these people that are claiming to be so high above the fray of all of this. I wish we could take ourselves out of the equation. Remember the publican that did not so much as lift his head to heaven and the Pharisee who said, "Lord I thank thee that I am not like this man over here."

    Or even comparing other men with you. It is pointless reasoning. The apostle Paul said that they that compare themselves with themselves are not wise.

    I wish people could see that you are trying to get to the truth and anytime one does that(you can watch those old Columbo episodes and watch how everyone always gave him grief and called foul on him) he is going to truly be unpopular.

    Can we all use a little more grace? I know I can, but I don't get my measurements from either Lou or Zane. I have to look to the Lord Jesus Christ alone. He is the author of grace and truth.

    When I first started blogging, I had folks saying and doing things that simply were not kosher and yet they kept demanding I apologize to them... not just one person, but a few of them that are still blogging today.

    Obviously you are hitting a nerve brother and it is important that you stay the course. Can we all glean elements of truth about a need for change in our character? Yes indeed and so we can learn from these comments, but this comparing other mens character with others is simply unwise...in fact the apostle Paul said it was foolish to look to man and boast in such manner.

    May God give all of us eyes to see and may we look to the cross alone and not to man. That is the main problem here and it seems to be manifesting itself. Zane Hodges is just a man.

    God is God and He will share his glory with no other. It is never easy to hold fast to truth.

    A person that grates me to no end is brother Lowell Davey from BBN. Even in our church I have heard men just spout off at the mouth about how they get so tired of listening to old stubborn Lowell on perspectives, but dear brother Lowell is right a good deal of the time. He is representative of the backbone in the body of Christ and often our hands are softer than our backbone, but we should not boast against a terribly needful element in our body.

    Lowell challenges a lot of the seeker sensitive movement that I have heard men like Antonio champion. He even had to let go of Dr David Jeremiah over a disagreement in after this order and they went seperate ways, but neither man is any holier than the other and men like Lowell Davey are very right very often and I find I need that rebuke even if I don't fully go along with everything he espouses, I do think his voice is a much needed one over the airwaves today and often you seem kind of the same in your comments, but it is good to listen to a good stubborn old koot or two with some backbone and willingness to embrace fundamentalism.

    Your imperfect brother that does not always agree with you on everything but is soooooo thankful that your uncompromising voice is out here in defense of the truth.
    Grace upon grace,

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  30. Gary/geo:

    As you can see I have allowed my blog partners to weigh in on your long comment, which I have reviewed and decided to disallow from appearing here.

    Earlier I told you that my blog will never become a platform for the propagation of Lordship Salvation or the egregious reductionist errors of the Grace Evangelical Society’s Crossless/Deityless interpretation of the Gospel. Specifically I wrote, “I want to provide the biblical answers to these twin departures from the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ. I do not want to provide a pulpit for the advocates of and sympathizers with the Crossless gospel or Lordship Salvation.” Your comment was primarily written to propagate the reductionist errors of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin. I will not allow my guests to be exposed to that here.

    You violated a trust. I will, however, at my discretion, be drawing from you two disallowed comments to address elements that may be of interest to my readers. My blog partners, who have your comment, may chose to address more of it. If they do I will post their comments.

    I am going to close by posting one portion of your comment and share a reaction to it with you.

    You wrote, “Zane and Bob believe in the deity and substitutionary atonement just as you do. They believe we should proclaim those truths to unbelievers. There is not one single truth in the Bible that they don’t believe should be proclaimed to unbelievers if it brings them to faith in Christ for eternal life.”

    This is NOT the crux of the controversy.

    The debate is not now and NEVER has been over what these GES men personally believe about the deity and finished work of Christ; NEVER. No one I am aware has charged them with personal unbelief or that they will not proclaim those truths to the unbeliever. If I learn of any one who rejects the GES interpretation of the Gospel making that charge I’ll correct them myself.

    The advocates of the Crossless gospel know that the debate and controversy is not there, but they keep trying to portray it as if it is.

    When they claim, as you just did, that we are charging Hodges and Wilkin with personal unbelief in regard to the deity and/or finished work of Christ, they are perpetuating a bold-faced lie and they know it. This lie is an intentional misdirect that is used by Crossless advocates to evade the true crux of the controversy. And now you know it is a lie!

    Hodges and Wilkin believe in the deity, death and resurrection of Christ, but here is the controversy: They insist the lost man does not have to be aware of, know, understand or believe in any of those three truths, but can still be born again. Furthermore, the most extreme among the Crossless advocates teaches that the lost man who openly rejects the deity of Christ can be born again. See- Can the Biblical Jesus & Mormon Jesus be, “One and the Same?”

    Now, I want to reiterate: If you or any Crossless advocates claims that we are charging Hodges and/or Wilkin with personal unbelief in the Lord’s deity or finished work- it is a willful lie.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  31. Gary:

    Before I will allow any more posting from you, you need to meet a condition I am setting down for you. What you must do is acknowledge that the Crossless gospel controversy, from our point of view, is NOT over the personal beliefs of Hodges and Wilkin in regard to the deity and/or finished work of Christ.

    To post here again your next post must acknowledge this fact and state that you understand without qualification that we are not calling into question their personal beliefs on the deity and/or finished work of Christ.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  32. Brian:

    I appreciate your encouragement.

    You are right about one who takes an uncompromising stand: He/she will not be winning a popularity contest. But where does our first loyalty belong; to the Lord or to friends and fellowships that have gone off into doctrinal extremism?

    I do not allow myself to be discouraged or deterred.

    Thanks,


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  33. Lou,
    I have read the lengthy post disallowed by you from goe (Gary) and after doing so my opinion is that his presence at your site has been a subterfuge. Feigning a desire for help, it looks to me that he is trying to argue for and promote the very thing he supposedly needed help with. Very deceptive. I posted comments in this thread, trying to offer what I thought could be of some benefit regarding the book of Acts, but now I really don't think he was looking for any help.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Art & All Guests:

    I regard to geo’s (Gary) you wrote, “Feigning a desire for help, it looks to me that he is trying to argue for and promote the very thing he supposedly needed help with. Very deceptive

    That was what I was expecting from him at the very first, noted my apprehension and cautioned him. I knew this was coming because of his having already posted very strong support for the teaching of Hodges at a pro-Crossless gospel blog.

    I gave him benefit of the doubt and was not surprised with what was the kind of political gamesmanship that is commonplace among many of the supporters and sympathizers of the GES.

    One benefit, however, that he gave us an opportunity to not only refute his Crossless views, but he has shown, yet again, that these GES followers think nothing of resorting to serious lapses of ethical behavior to salvage what is left of the shrinking cell of theological extremists in the GES.

    I have lost count of how many times we have seen these Hodges followers commit blatant acts of Plagiarism, Sock Puppets, character assassination, violating trusts, ambushing FG men, etc.

    I have always noted that bad doctrine leads to bad behavior. There has been a great deal of sanctioned lapses in ethics emanating from the followers of Zane Hodges. While Gary’s behavior is minor in nature compared to what other Crossless advocates have done, it is nonetheless a new example of the poor behavior choices that are becoming commonplace among the followers of Zane Hodges and the GES.

    The Crossless gospel has been irrefutably proven to be a reductionist, anti-biblical approach to the Gospel. They have nothing left other than to demonize those who reject their extremist theology and willfully commit serious lapses in ethical behavior.

    The ironic part is that they congratulate one another for their poor behavior and unchristian like combativeness. Their most passionate sympathizer always reasons out a way to understand and legitimize their lapses of judgment in the area of ethics. Sad!

    Bad doctrine leads to bad behavior!


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dear Guests:

    Gary’s deleted comment was posted at a pro-Crosslessblog this morning. That is fine and what should have been done with what he had to say in the first place.

    It’s appearance there this morning proves complicity and collusion between Gary and his pro-Crossless gospel friends who contribute to that blog. The ethical thing would have been for Gary to post his comments there in the first place, but that would have been the ethical thing to do.

    Normally, I do not mention any pro-Crossless gospel blogs. I only acknowledge this episode because it verifies the very thing Art and I have just posted on, which is the lapses in ethical behavior that is commonplace among the followers of Zane Hodges.

    Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them>. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple,” (Rom. 16:17-18).

    Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us… And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,” (2 Thess. 3: 6, 14-15).

    Ignore them!

    Bad doctrine leads to bad behavior!


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  36. Lou,

    I don't think it is any coincidence that in the very same chapter in which Paul declares his gospel, and the importance of holding it fast, he also writes: "Bad company corrupts good morals" (1 Cor. 15:33).

    JP

    ReplyDelete
  37. JP:

    Good addition, I did not have that in mind, but sure does describe what we are witnessing in the CG debates.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dear Guests:

    I have some exciting news! Mr. Greg Schliesmann is preparing a review of The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalists by Zane Hodges. In just a few days Greg’s review will be posted here as a feature article.

    Greg has contributed a number of articles here that have devastated the reductionist teaching of Hodges, Wilkin and the GES. For example you can read Greg’s two part series, The “Christ” Under Siege and The “Christ” Under Siege: The New Assault from the GES.

    You might also view Greg’s series, False Paradigms of the “Crossless” Gospel, Part 1 & Part 2.

    Once you read those samples from Brother Schliesmann you will better recognize and understand the egregious reductionist errors of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin.

    Check back for Greg Schliesmann’s review of Zane Hodges’s polarizing article, The Hydra’s Other head: Theological Legalists.


    LM

    ReplyDelete