Greg Schliesmann to Review The Hydra’s Other Head
Dear Guests:
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. Following are two samples from Greg’s review.
In the article Zane Hodges slams those who teach what Hodges himself once taught, namely that the unsaved must “trust completely in what Christ has done for us in dying for our sins,” as “theological legalists.” Hodges slams this position because he now believes it is “theological legalism” to claim the Bible requires the lost to believe in Christ’s death, resurrection, or Deity as part of the content of saving faith. Instead, Hodges advocates the idea the lost must only believe someone named Jesus (even if that person is not deemed to be the God-man who died on the cross and rose again) guarantees everlasting life by faith alone.
Hodges claims the normal Free Grace position is “at war with the Gospel of John.” This is an entirely gratuitous and unsupported claim. Rather than normal Free Grace proponents having a problem with the Gospel of John, Hodges’s views on the Gospel of John create a problem with the rest of the New Testament, which requires the lost to believe “the Gospel.”Greg has contributed a number of articles here that have devastated the reductionist teachings 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 anti-biblical teachings 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
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTo All:
ReplyDeleteA first time visitor to my blog left a vitriolic comment that was:
1) From a man who apparently does not know or understand the issues, and
2) Contained the kind of harsh rhetoric that is commonplace from those who either advocate or sympathize with the Crossless gospel.
I suggest to that person that he post his bitter, uniformed accusations elsewhere.
He might also do well to meditate on Col. 4:6 before he posts on this subject again.
LM
I will also suggest to the previous first time guest that he return later today to view a full article on the subject he just commented on.
ReplyDeleteHe may have good cause to revise his previous statement.
LM
And one more note to my first time guest:
ReplyDeleteMy primary goal in dealing with Lordship Salvation and the GES’s Crossless gospel is to inform and protect the unsuspecting.
If they know what the dangers signs are and those who teach these twin assaults on the Gospel they are far less likely to be deceived and fall into the trap of either one of these egregious errors.
Wouldn’t you agree that this is right and biblical to point out false teaching, inform, mark, avoid and withdraw from the prime instigators of these doctrinal errors?
As for those who have already succumbed to Hodges's reductionist assault on the Person and work of Christ, it is our hope and prayer that they will one day be recovered.
Until that time, however, it is our biblically mandated duty to sound the alarm so that others do not come under the corruptive doctrinal influences of Hodges, Wilkin and the GES. Greg's review of the latest article by Zane Hodges will do much to accomplish this goal
Only the ecumenical mindset would want to encourage fellowship with the teachers of and tolerance for the reductionist heresy of the Crossless gospel and/or the works based man centered message of Lordship Salvation.
LM
I agree Lou. It's very odd to me that so many Christians are so adamant against pluralism in the world yet so comfortable with it within Christianity. They are comfortable with the idea of "getting along with" logically exclusive views.
ReplyDeleteExample:
Person A: "You have to believe X+Y and only X+Y to be saved."
Person B: "No, you have to believe X+Y+Z. Nothing more, nothing less."
Both statements make exclusive claims and so, by definition, are not compatible; at least one of them is wrong. However, it doesn't take a very bright lamp to recognize that they can't both be true -- yet that is exactly what many Christians do under a pseudo-Christian claim to seek peace and harmony. They point out that A and B have X+Y in common so they aren't really that different and should "get along". That sounds nice but they are essentially committing logical suicide and asking others to join them.
If the issue being debated was trivial, they might have a point, but no reasonable Christian can claim the content of saving faith is a trivial issue. That claim is the offspring of confusion at best, and is disingenuous at worst. The nature of what's at stake for lost person is ample indication that the matter isn't trivial and is both worth fighting for, and unifying over.
Stephen:
ReplyDeleteThat is very well said.
We are witnessing an ecumenical spirit that prefers unity at the expense tolerance for and cooperation with known and vital doctrinal error.
The folks who sympathize with the Crossless gospel and its advocates would NEVER seek such unity with the advocates of Lordship Salvation. They do, however, want to embrace the heretical reductionist errors of Zane Hodges. Maybe those who sympathize with the Crossless gospel think that since all FG men do reject LS we should rally together. WRONG!
Read this from Ryrie,
“The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel; therefore, one of them is a false gospel and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), and this is a very serious matter.”
You could easily revise that statement to make it perfectly applicable to the debate in the FG community. Wilkin and GES, through the teaching of Hodges, have stripped the Gospel of the necessary content of saving faith and have stripped the Deity of Christ out of His titles the “Son of God” and “the Christ.” How any one can find these assaults on the Person and work of Christ a mere, “difference of opinion that is acceptable” is astonishing.
The spirit of ecumenical compromise is leading some to embrace the errors of one (Hodges) to get a chance at corporately refuting the errors of the other (MacArthur); this is a COLOSSAL ERROR! It is treason against the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God, which forbids such unholy alliances.
Thanks for the helpful comment and I want to close by repeating your closing thought.
“The nature of what's at stake for lost person is ample indication that the matter isn't trivial and is both worth fighting for, and unifying over.”
Lou
PS: You new article will post here at my blog later this evening. Your remarks here are a great lead in.
FYI, I went to Joe's blog and he had the following to say in one of his articles.
ReplyDelete"One post I read asserted that we should not so simplify the gospel that we reduce it to some common trite, meaningless set of phrases.
I say, WRONG!"
I thought that really odd and out of place with the article as a whole so I asked him about it. He responded, I acknowledged his response was reasonable and introduced myself.... and he deleted my comments. ???
Ironic that it was article he had written about Christians treating each other better. I wasn't rude and he uncivilly deleted my comments from an article about Christian civility.
He should be ashamed, my bet is he won't be. ;-)
(Too bad that only you and Joe will appreciate the irony of that statement.)
Stephen:
ReplyDeleteI got it, funny. And his treatment of you exemplifies the hypocrisy of the "unity & niceness" camp.
Lou
I don't think you guys understand Joe. He is not part of anyones camp. I've followed him for the past few years and he is just plain ol Joe. I really think there is an element of truth to be gleaned from him. Maybe he had kid gloves with Rose, but I still think there is something to be gleaned here.
ReplyDeleteI love you guys and am thankful for your stubborn insistence for the cross and the person of Christ.
Grace upon grace,
Brian
Hi Brian:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your note about Joe.
I would have agreed with you that he is plain ol' Joe, but after what he posted this morning, I'd say that whatever gloves he has- they were off while he typed and posted here.
I'm over it.
Thanks,
Lou
PS: Check back at 9:30pm (central time) for a new article by Stephen.
True, but good ol Joe really doesn't have a dog in this fight and I really believe he has a dear heart for God.
ReplyDeleteAlso Lou. I did not realize he was over here, but I love him jus the same. He loves the Lord. We all have our perspectives and oddly enough we all find points of agreements or disagreements. This is a tough issue as we all want healing in the body and unity and we struggle with hurts but we do have to all stand at the cross as we can do no other.
ReplyDeleteGrace upon grace,
Brian
Yo Brian, I don't know Joe and I have not attempted to categorize him into anyone's camp. I also don't have a serious problem with Joe but he apparently has a problem with me, presumably bcz I (openly) explained my connection to Lou.
ReplyDeleteIt's ironic that he wrote an article about Christians being more tolerant of each other yet in the comments of that very article he was belittling in response to bryoniac who kindly pointed out a simple spelling error and he was smug in his reply to my initial comment which reasonably questioned the peculiarity of the snippet above. Maybe Joe just has a really dry sense of humor that I don't "get". What I can tell ya is that the impression I get from how he jumped Lou this morning and responded to very light "criticism" (if you even wanna call it that) at his blog is that the guy wants to dish it out but can't take it -- Ironic that he clamors for tolerance yet demonstrates so little, even in the comments of an article HE wrote about that very issue. That said, I don't have any lingering heartache with Joe and I don't see him as a foe. He's apparently hot about somethin' so I'll cut'im some slack and let him cool off.
>Maybe Joe just has a really dry sense of humor that I don't "get"<
ReplyDeleteI think your getting warm brother:-)
As far as his seeming allegiances to Rose?
I don't think it is that but I really can't speak for him. Rose is beloved to all of us and especially for him because the law of proximity kicks in I think. I just happen to agree with Lou's tough love approach toward her and believe in the end that will end up helping her more, but Joe doesn't have to agree with us there.
Grace upon grace,
Brian
Brian:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the note.
We have done and will do what we can to help recover Rose. In the meantime Rose has my assurance that if she shows up to post at any blog or site that I participate at I am going to give that blog/site a fair warning about her personal affinity for, allegiance to and ecumenical approach toward the Crossless gospel and its extremist advocates.
I will link them to the article by Stephen so that they understand what Rose has become, the tragedy of it and the danger to others who may be unfamiliar with the reductionist heresy of Zane Hodges.
This will also help to forewarn the unsuspecting who may be lead, by Rose’s encouragement, right to the doorstep of the teachers of the GES Crossless gospel.
KnetKnight’s Reasoning on Rose: We Just Can’t Know?
Lou
Hello again Brian. I don't intend to beat a dead horse, this will be my last comment on the matter. I could accept it was dry humor if Joe hadn't outright claimed I was either undiscerning or picking a fight. That's not humor, that's rude. Joe's not on my hit list or anything, I even told (in the comments he deleted) that I agreed with his article overall, just questioned the peculiar snippet above. It's dust on my shoes now and I'm movin' on.
ReplyDeleteLou, any word when Greg will post his own review? Rachel's got parts 2 and 3 set to go live Wednesday and Monday respectively, at 0600. I am really lookin' forward to Greg's review too. His other articles have been very helpful in exposing the gaping holes in Redefined FG arguments.
Stepehn:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the follow-up on Joe's comment here.
I have Greg's review, but it will take several days to format. It will be a multi part series. Keep running Rachel's as scheduled. I will begin Greg's sometime next week. Greg's review devastates the article and the theology that under girds it.
BTW, Rosker's critique will post at the Grace Family Journal any day now.
Lou
I understand Stephen and you have a good point. I did taste some edge from it, but want to be believing toward Joe and he does have dry humor and just plain old hard hitting humor, so maybe it has been hard for me to discern.
ReplyDeleteGod bless you all as I can bid you God speed without any misgivings or hesitations as you believe as I do in whole and not part,
Brian
Brain
ReplyDeleteI can assure that there was NO intent at humor, dry or otherwise in Joe's comment here.
His deleting Stephen's comment also indicates that he had no sense of humor over the issue.
Lou
Well then I apologize for possibly enabling him in this. I don't understand why he would do this, but I must stay committed to the truth here and continue encouraging you all in this.
ReplyDeleteGrace upon grace,
Brian
Hi Brian:
ReplyDeleteI took no offense and I did not feel you were enabling what was done.
When personalities and friends are involved some take it personally and react emotionally. They sometimes lose the better part of themselves, as we all sometimes do.
I appreciate your good nature and prayerful support as we labor to address the reductionist errors coming from Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin.
Kind regards,
Lou
>They sometimes lose the better part of themselves, as we all sometimes do.<
ReplyDeleteAmen...I know I have in the past in so many respects.
Grace upon grace,
Brian