October 8, 2008

Stakes Through the Heart of Zane Hodges’s Hydra Head

Dear Guests:

Three new major reviews Zane Hodges’s polarizing article, The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism, have been or will be published this week.

Bob Nyberg’s review was the first to be published. See Major Development… for the link.

Brothers Gordon Cloud and Art Sims have reviewed and/or reacted to the disturbing implication of the Hodges Hydra Head article. See Hodges’s Hydra Head Under Additional Review for those discussions.

I have previously advised you (with samples) that Greg Schliesmann’s Review will be publishing his review here at IDOTG next week.

At The Land of Reason blog Rachel has posted the first two of her three part review titled, Beheading Hodges’s Hydra.

At the Grace Family Journal, Pastor Dennis Rokser has published A Critique of Zane Hodges Article… . Following are three samples from Pastor Rokser’s critique.

1) In the ongoing debate over this new free grace crossless gospel of the GES, Hodges’ article is filled with exegetical, doctrinal, and logical fallacies. Furthermore, for those who have falsely accused us (who have opposed the teaching of the crossless gospel) of misrepresenting the views of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin, think again and judge for yourself, for this article provides indisputable facts to prove the claim unwarranted and patently wrong.

2) Hodges takes the same view as Covenant Theology in denying progressive revelation related to the saving message of the Gospel. The issue is not merely, “What did God require of sinners to be saved in past ages?”, but “What does He require to be saved in this present age under the dispensation of grace?” In factoring in progressive revelation, Ryrie states, “
The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations.” This has been the standard dispensational soteriological view for many years.

Furthermore, Hodges fails to note that John does not even personally appeal
to his readers to personally believe the content of what has been written in his Gospel until he declares the record of Christ’s death (John 19:35) and His bodily resurrection (John 20:31).

3) I find it conspicuous by its absence that Hodges omits any statement on the DEITY of Jesus Christ in either his evangelistic checklist of what a sinner needs to believe to have eternal life or in the separate list of what Jesus never invited anyone to believe. Why the obvious omission?
Rokser’s critique was posted TODAY!  
You may visit the GFJ to download the PDF and learn the answer to that penetrating question.

As you read these reviews you will come to understand just how far askew of the biblical plan of salvation Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin their extremist followers in the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) have drifted. Share these reviews with as many people you can in your various spheres of influence. We must do all we can to expose the GES’s Crossless interpretation of the Gospel.

We must help the unsuspecting to first recognize, then reject and refute the egregious reductionist assaults on the Deity and finished work of Jesus Christ emanating from Zane Hodges and the GES.

Make no room for the ecumenical spirit of compromise or cooperation with the prime instigators of the Crossless gospel.



  1. Lou:

    In light of the "content of what has been written" and the context of John's gospel, Rokser's statement would more accurately read:

    "Furthermore, Hodges fails to note that John does not even personally appeal to his readers to personally believe the content of what has been written in his Gospel until he declares the record of Christ’s death for our sins (John 19:35; cf. Jn. 1:29-34) and His bodily resurrection from the grave to appear 'in the presence of the disciples' (John 20:30-31; cf. Jn. 19:38-21:14)."

    This is John's gospel message and what must be "believed" (cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-11).


  2. JP:

    I appreciate your concern. For the purpose of his critique I am quite comfortable with the paragraph as written by Dennis Rokser.



  3. David:

    Thanks for stopping by.

    Be sure to read the reviews as they become available.

    I trust you would agree that, if nothing else, the article by Hodges affirms that those of us who reject his reductionist approach to the content of saving faith have NOT misunderstood or misrepresented his position.

    Can you agree with that much?


  4. To All:

    Pastor Rokser's critique of the Hodges article was posted today at the Grace Family Journal.

    Follow the link to where you may download the Special Edition Introduction and Rokser's full critique of The Hydra's Other Head: Theological Legalism.


  5. Just finished reading Rokser's article, very well done!

    I liked this summary: "I must confess that the Gospel is under siege again by the very man who wrote the book on it!"

    More thoughts later but it's late so I'm off to plow a pillow.

  6. Hi Stephen:

    That line by Rokser is a perfect summation of all that Hodges (and Wilkin) have done to assault the Gospel their through reductionism.


  7. To All:

    I do have the article nearly complete that details how Bob Wilkin changed the GES Affirmation of Beliefs.

    An interesting note from a source close to Wilkin will be included on the logistics of the changes.

    Once we get all the reviews published on Hodges Hydra's Head article I will post the GES Affirmations article.


  8. Good mornin' Lou. The changes to GES' statement of faith were one of the key evidences to us that the GES was deliberately moving away from a responsible position. I look forward to your article.

    As for Rokser's article, I appreciate him standing up for our use of 1 Cor 15. Hodges' attempt to deconstruct our use of that passage was nonsense and utterly failed. He blatantly ignored the importance of "according to the scriptures" and how it singles out Jesus' death and bodily resurrection from among the evidential info that comes after.

    Hodges 'rebuttal' of 1 Cor 15 was irresponsible and lays bare his shameful bias.

  9. Stephen,

    What content of the gospel is not according to the Scriptures?


  10. Stephen,

    What exegetical basis do you have for determining the content of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15?


  11. Hey JP. That's a legit question and I have some definite thoughts. I know you've got some space carved out for this at your place so I'll be glad to follow up with you there as time permits.