April 28, 2009

Men Consistently “Saw the Light” of Zane’s Reasoning, Part 1

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

The series beginning today is a revised version of a thread comment by Brother Ron Shea, originally appearing in Evangelism with the Jehovah’s Witnesses at my Door. The series opens with the initial installment:

What Turned Hodges to this Profound (Deconstructionist) Error?

Brethren:

I have often speculated on how or why a man of Zane Hodges’s character fell to such corrupt theology.

At some time in our lives, we have ALL been in a heated argument where the other person was as “wrong as rain,” that if 10,000 people had heard the entire exchange, they would have agreed with you. And yet, your “friend” (or whomever) argued until he was blue in the face with a vigor that was undeniable, and it was clear he had chosen to believe a lie to exonerate himself. His logic may have been idiotic, but he believed it.

No one will ever know what turned Hodges to this profound (deconstructionist) error on the gospel. Is there any way to confirm such things? Could it have been an experience such as the following scenario?
Zane had been involved in a dialogue about the gospel with someone he loved. By the time that person died, he or she had assented only to the fact that Jesus offered eternal life, but had either rejected His divinity, His atoning death, or His resurrection.
It was not necessary that they rejected all three. Zane was a smart man, and would not be able to advance any kind of an argument that would eliminate one of those facts from the embodiment of saving faith from the others. (The elimination of one without the others would seem arbitrary).

The pain of his friend being in Hell was more than he could bare, and his mind began to tinker with ways to rationalize they were with the Lord. And this gave birth to the reductionist gospel known as the “Crossless” or “Promise-Only” gospel.

Is this how it happened? We will not know until we pass to the other side.

Although the free-grace movement pre-dated Zane (John Nelson Darby, C.H. MacIntosh, Harry Ironside, Lewis Sperry Chaffer), and co-dated Zane (Ray Stanford, Dick Seymour, et al.), few could deny that Zane would, today, be the elder statesmen of the free grace movement had it not been for his final departure from the historic Christian Gospel as the only message of salvation. Almost everyone in the contemporary free grace movement had been influenced by Zane’s cogent treatment of “problem” verses and books. I scheduled all of my seminary classes around my determination to take electives under Zane on Hebrews, 1st John, and James. I will never regret it. And I’m sure I am not alone in my debt to Zane.

So it was all the more that those of us who read some of Zane’s later writings, and his attempts to defend these novel theological positions . . . those of us who weighed Zane’s arguments objectively stood by and watch in disbelief. Zane’s arguments were plainly below the intellect and careful weighing of the facts that we had come to expect of him.

For Zane, we can only speculate. But as for his followers, the answer is far simpler.

In the Gospel of John, there were “secret service believers” who were unwilling to confess Him publicly, because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. I have noticed that those who have embraced the Crossless gospel were not theologians and Christians punctuating the evangelical landscape, who read the work of some unknown theologian (Zane) on the web or in print, and found the arguments compelling.

NO! The “inner circle” consisted of those men (and women) who had been embraced by Zane as a friend, and/or fellow theologian. They had an emotional stake in Zane’s friendship. Or more importantly, because Zane was a respected theologian of the first order, they had a vested emotional stake in Zane’s validation of them as theologians. To a man, people like Bob Wilkin and John Niemela somehow “saw the logic” of all of Zane Hodges’s defections.

Hodges’s position on repentance is illogical, and lexically and theologically indefensible. In Bob Wilkin’s own doctoral thesis, he had a section reviewing the existing works on the subject. In his remarks about one book, his comments incorporated a rather terse humor.
So and so writes largely from her own emotional experience, and devotes little effort to a serious exegesis of the text.” (I read his doctoral thesis twenty years ago, so please indulge any inaccuracies in my attempt to quote the line from memory.)
I could not help but think, after reading Zane’s later discussions on repentance, that Bob’s words in his doctoral thesis described Zane’s articles to a ‘T’. Yet somehow, Zane’s inner circle, including Bob, “saw the light” of Zane’s new position.


Brother Ron Shea’s series will be continued with The “Deconstructionist” Gospel: Its No Coincidence

46 comments:

  1. I am just as bothered about the GES system as the next person; but how Hodges may have started down that trail due to the death of someone dear to him who did not receive the whole gospel is pure speculation. Rather I have to wonder if his downward journey did not actually start instead by his merely taking classic dispensationalism where nobody ever thought of before.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mark:

    Both speculation IMO.

    As Brother Shea noted, "No one will ever know what turned Hodges to this profound ('deconstructionist') error on the gospel."


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ron is of course right that no one can know for sure why Zane came to reduce the gospel to another gospel. Interesting scenario he puts forth however.

    Ron's assessment of Zane's followers is the most penetrating I've seen. It is worth repeating:

    "Or more importantly, because Zane was a respected theologian of the first order, they had a vested emotional stake in Zane’s VALIDATION OF THEM AS THEOLOGIANS (my emphasis)."

    I think this is spot on.

    Jimmy

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don’t believe that it was a matter of Zane 'taking classical dispensationalism where nobody ever thought of before.' In fact, I believe that it was a rejection of classical dispensationalism’s stance on progressive revelation that led Zane astray.

    In the Fall of 2008, I was wondering about Zane’s concept of progressive revelation as it relates to classical dispensationalism. So I asked him to specifically comment on the doctrinal statement of DTS regarding progressive revelation and the gospel. Here is the part of the DTS statement that I sent to Zane for comment:

    "We believe that according to the eternal purpose of God (Eph. 3:11) salvation in the divine reckoning is always by grace, through faith, and rests upon the shed blood of Christ. We believe that God has always been gracious, regardless of the ruling dispensation, but that man has not at all times been under an administration or stewardship of grace as is true in the present dispensation.... We believe ... that the principle of faith was prevalent in the lives of all the Old Testament saints. However, we believe that it was historically impossible that they should have had as the conscious object of their faith the incarnate, crucified Son, the Lamb of God (John 1:29), and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ. (Article V)"

    Here is Zane’s reply to me:

    "I always thought the DTS statement was ambiguous and I still do."

    Bob Wilkin probably reflects Zane’s position in this regard:

    "Dispensationalism is the teaching that God has had different requirements during different ages as to what believers must do to please God. It is also the teaching that Israel is distinct and always will be distinct from the church. Some people, many people, feel that each time God gave more revelation, the content of saving faith changed. Thus what Adam and Eve had to believe to be born again was far different than what people had to believe during Isaiah’s day. And what people had to believe to be saved during Jesus’ earthly ministry is different from what people have to believe today to be born again. It is my contention that the content of saving faith has never changed. There has been and always will be only one saving message. The message that the Lord Jesus preached during His earthly ministry is, I believe, the same message He preached to Adam and Eve in the Garden. It is the same message that He preached to Abraham and to Moses as well."

    I can’t be 100% dogmatic, but putting two and two together, it does seem that Zane and Bob both rejected the classical dispensational understanding of progressive revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mark:

    I thought about this a little further.

    No one I know is exactly sure of when Hodges began his slide into this “deconstructionst” gospel that is the teaching of GES. No doubt it came into world view in 2001 with his two-part article, How to Lead People to Christ. That series revealed what he had been developing for who knows how long.

    Hodges was no less susceptible than the next guy to lose balance in his personal theology. He was no less susceptible than the next guy to over-react to Lordship Salvation (LS). Where LS errs by addition to the content of saving faith, the Crossless gospel errs by subtraction.

    There is no doubt in my mind that Hodges went way past correcting the obvious errors in LS. He bounced off of LS and all the way over to developing what is without question the most extreme form of the so-called “Easy-Believism” ever seen in the New Testament church.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bob:

    I appreciate your visit.

    Thanks for the extend notes on Hodges, Wilkin and Dispensationalism.

    Kind regards,


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  7. When Bob quotes Wilkin here, "It is my contention that the content of saving faith has never changed. There has been and always will be only one saving message. The message that the Lord Jesus preached during His earthly ministry is, I believe, the same message He preached to Adam and Eve in the Garden. It is the same message that He preached to Abraham and to Moses as well."
    That is similar to the Reformed position. Interesting.

    Just a couple of questions here. Please don't read any malicious intent into them: Are classic dispensationalism and classic free grace theology synonymous? Would Darby, Scofield, Chafer or Ironside have considered themselves "free grace", or was that assighed to them after their deaths? Were they consciously developing a system that would "rival" reformed theology? (yes, I know Darby, Scofield and Chafer were somewhat more calvinistic than today's classic dispensationalist; but my question stands.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mark,

    I don't see your question as having any "malicious" intent. It is a fair question IMO.

    Jimmy

    P.S. Lou, was my previous (unposted) comment unfit?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jimmy:

    A comment for this thread? I did not see one. Please resubmit for me to give it a look.

    Thanks,


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  10. That is similar to the Reformed position. Interesting.Mark,

    Several of us have noticed this too.

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  11. To All:

    I just spoke to Ron Shea he will be posting here shortly.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mark, those are some great questions!

    * Are classic dispensationalism and classic free grace theology synonymous?

    * Would Darby, Scofield, Chafer or Ironside have considered themselves "free grace", or was that assigned to them after their deaths?

    I can’t speak to Chafer or Scofield, but I do have a quote from Ironside that indicates to me that he was free grace (as opposed to Lordship salvation).

    Dr. Harry Ironside (1876-1951) wrote: “When anyone comes promising salvation to those ‘who make full surrender’ of all that they have to God, and who ‘pay the price of full salvation’ he is preaching another gospel, for the price was paid on Calvary’s cross and the work that saves is finished. It was Christ Jesus who made the full surrender when He yielded His life on Calvary that saves us, not our surrender in any way to Him.”

    In my opinion, both William Newell and Lance Latham would also be in the dispensational camp. Here are quotes by them indicating that they were free grace also:

    William R. Newell (1868-1953) wrote: “to preach full surrender to an unsaved man as the way of salvation will just make a hateful Pharisee out of him.”

    Lance Latham (1894-1985) wrote: “Surely we must recognize WHO HE IS, or we will die in our sins (John 8:24). But this is vastly different from making Him your Lord in your life, in other words, promising to obey the rest of your life. This latter is preaching ‘works.’”

    This fall a new book is scheduled to be released called “Free Grace Theology: A Primer on Traditional Dispensational Soteriology.” It sounds like an interesting read. It may answer some of those questions. I know I’m looking forward to reading it.

    Bob

    ReplyDelete
  13. Here are a few quotes from L. S. Chafer’s Systematic Theology (Ch XX The Terms of Salvation) which indicate that he was very much in the free grace camp:

    "... to impose a need to surrender the life to God as an added condition of salvation is most unreasonable. God’s call to the unsaved is never said to be unto the Lordship of Christ; it is unto His saving grace. ... The error of imposing Christ’s Lordship upon the unsaved is disastrous ..."

    "The most subtle, self-satisfying form of works of merit is ... applying to unbelievers the Lordship of Christ. What more could God expect than that the creatures of His hand should by supposed surrender be attempting to be obedient to Him? In such idealism the darkened mind of the unsaved, no doubt, sees dimly some possible advantage in submitting their lives to the guidance of a Supreme Being—of whom they really know nothing. Such notions are only human adjustments to God and resemble in no way the terms of divine adjustment, which first condemns man and rejects all his supposed merit, and then offers a perfect and eternal salvation to the helpless sinner on no other terms than that he believes on Christ as his Savior. ..."

    "The unregenerate person, because of his condition in spiritual death, has no ability to desire the things of God (1 Cor. 2:14), or to anticipate what his outlook on life will be after he is saved. It is therefore an error of the first magnitude to divert that feeble ability of the unsaved to exercise a God-given faith for salvation into the unknown and complex spheres of self-dedication, which dedication is the Christian’s greatest problem."

    Bob

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bob,
    Thanks for all your work and patience in answering my questions.

    Along with what I noted earlier about ZH's similarity to reformed theology in regards to progressive revelation, Ive also noticed that his views of the New Covenant were more similar to the reformed than to classic dispensationalism. Were not his views on repentance closer to the reformed than to classic dispensationalism (CD) as well? I'm just trying follow the train of his thought process here.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mark (All):

    You are correct on the repentance of Hodges. Ron Shea wrote a two article here in August 2008. In that series he wrote on this at length. Here is an excerpt from Part 2 (links below):


    And now we come to the great circular logic of Zane Hodges, former heir apparent of the Free Grace mantel . . . “John doesn’t teach repentance to be saved, and John is sufficient for salvation, therefore, repentance is not needed for salvation.” Hmmmmm? Does that depend, perhaps . . . on your definition of “repent?”

    Hodges has come to believe, against the full body of Greek literature, that repentance is turning from one’s sins. There are nuances where honest theologians can disagree. This is not one of them. The belief that repentance somehow takes sin as its automatic object is indefensible from Greek. It is bluntly contradicted by a mass of secular literature as well as Scriptural usage.

    Because Hodges has retained his commitment against Lordship Salvation, the only way he is able to teach a Reformed definition of repentance (a turning from sin) while preserving grace is to claim that “repentance” is never presented as a requirement for salvation in the New Testament.


    Drifting far Off the Marker, Part 1Drifting far Off the Marker, Part 2

    ReplyDelete
  16. This fall a new book is scheduled to be released called “Free Grace Theology: A Primer on Traditional Dispensational Soteriology.”Bob-

    This sounds wonderful! Who is the author?

    JanH

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

    ReplyDelete
  18. On this thread it is becoming apparent that Zane Hodges revisited some key Classic Dispensational points - progressive revelation, the New Covenant, repentance, etc. - and wondered if they were arrived at systematically rather than exegetically. When he sought to rectify the situation it put him on a trajectory that became the basis for the GES system. So his theology was the driving force rather than some personal experience.

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jan,

    Each chapter is by a different author. The general editor is J. B. Hixson who wrote "Getting The Gospel Wrong."

    Here is a sneak peak at some of the chapters in the book....

    ----------------------

    What Is Free Grace? by Dr. Mike Halsey

    What Is the Gospel? by Dr. J. B. Hixson

    The Distinction Between Salvation and Discipleship by Dr. Fred Lybrand

    What about Lordship Salvation? by Dr. Charlie Bing

    The Nature of Faith in the New Testament by Dr. Fred Chay & John Correia

    Repentance by Dr. Richard Seymour

    Rewards and the Bema Judgment by Greg Sapaugh

    Sin and Free Grace Theology by Dr. Mike Stallard

    Eternal Security and Assurance of Salvation by Dr. Dave Anderson

    What Is Traditional Dispensationalism? by Thomas Ice

    Evangelism and Free Grace Theology by Dr. Larry Moyer

    ----------------------

    I don't see a chapter on the history of free grace theology which would be interesting.

    Bob

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mark,

    Yes, Zane's definition of repentance is much closer to that of John MacArthur in that he claims it is turning from sin.

    I posted an article on my website showing the differences between John MacArthur, Zane Hodges & Charles Ryrie with regard to repentance. You can find it at:

    http://www.4himnet.com/bnyberg/The_Free_Grace_Gospel-Repentance_vs_Faith-Nyberg.pdf

    Bob

    BTW, If anyone is curious Bob N. & Bob the Political Junkie is the same person -- me. I had a blog last fall called "The Political Junkie" which I recently deleted. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mark,

    I am still holding out hope your questions were motivated by something other than a simple desire to discredit Classic Dispensationalism.

    Jimmy

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jimmy,
    I have a history of bad feelings for CD, it is true. But, I wish to try to interact with it from here out. I shall not be malicious on this blog. I mean no harm here on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mark:

    Thanks for the kind reply to Jimmy.

    Bob, I did not know BobN and Bob the PJ were the same. Ha!


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi Mark,

    Just got a minute here. I understand why you might infer that this was the process that led Zane astray, but I have these thoughts.

    I'm not aware of Zane being on record challenging how Classic Dispensationalism was determined.

    Also, it was not the application of CD that led Zane astray, but as Bob said, it was the trying to mix more than one systematic theology together.

    CD falls apart if Reformed definitions are applied to the terminology used by Paul. Zane wasn't led astray by CD but by trying to mix CD and Reformed theology.

    There is nothing of CD (that I am aware of) that would lead someone to look at the Scriptures the way Zane had ended up doing.

    I believe his eventual error was come to by his desire to do his own thing. A very human thing to want... I don't think it's any more complicated than that. But I don't have him on record stating anything like that either...

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  25. As an FYI to All:

    In the revised edition of my book on LS I added some sections to identify the equally egregious (although reductionist) teachings of Hodges, Wilkin and GES. I wanted to make sure as people recoil from LS they do NOT bounce off of LS and right into the trap of the Crossless gospel.

    I did a brief section on Hodges, Wilkin repentance. This is how I conclude that section.


    Ironically, Wilkin’s 1985 doctrinal dissertation is titled Repentance as a Condition for Salvation in the New Testament. At that time Wilkin held the “change of mind” view and believed repentance was a condition for salvation. The influence of Hodges eventually led Wilkin to abandon the position he defended in his dissertation. At the 1998 Grace Evangelical Society’s National Conference Bob Wilkin revealed he had a “change of mind” about repentance. Hodges and Wilkin defined repentance as “turning from sin” and also announced their view that repentance (by any definition) is not a condition for salvation.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Kevin,
    As this thread unfolds it is becoming evident that what Zane had begun to do was to adopt the apostolic and New Covenant Theology method of having the New Testament interpret the Old. Your obseration that he had turned away from the CD hermeneutic is valid.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mark,

    Your answer was well put. I was wondering how you were going to keep from going after CD in your reply to me. You honored your statement to Jimmy. I'm really really pleased by that! More than pleased.

    I do know your opinion, and I deeply respect your restraint.

    I do not wish to bait you at all, but the line of conversation is important. At least I think so. Mostly because I see this same error is spreading through the GES.

    It plays out when GES Gospel supporters use terminology in deceptive ways in conversations. But more dangerously, it gets into their heads and blinds them from being able to evaluate their (or any) theology properly.

    A plain reading of Scripture is always the best way. I know that everyone claims to get their theology FROM Scripture, most often men know their theology long before they know Scripture.

    You implied that Zane recognized some failing in CD - and it is not a perfect system, no system is - and that in his search to correct these failings he wandered into his great error.

    A plain reading of Scripture protects people against these types of error.

    What we see in Zane's case was that a plain reading was no longer pleasing to him. I think we ought to, each and everyone of us, be aware of how close we are to falling into the same trap.

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  28. As far as this so called "Classic Dispensationalism" is concerned, would someone please clearly define what is meant? The dispensationalism of Scofield and Chafer is not the same on many points as Pentecost, Ryrie, or even the 1967 reworking of the Scofield Study Bible.All I am wondering is which period is being referred to, that's all, or are you guys conflating it all under one title?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hey Bob!

    I didn't realize you were Bob Nyberg! I had (sort of) recently emailed you looking for the source of a quote by H. A. Ironside, which you graciously gave me. (Thank you very much.)

    I was wondering if I'd ever see you around these parts. :)

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  30. The article Bob referred to is very helpful. I saw that myself.

    Go to his sight. It is very good!

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hey Gents:
    A thought on Classic Dispensationalism (CD) and the position of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin.

    Although progressive revelation and dispensationalism are not identical, there is a strong overlap in that, (at least with the Mosaic dispensation and the church, the two dispensations about which we know the most), the content of saving faith also grew more specific largely in conjunction with a new dispensation.

    I used to believe that the "content of saving faith" in the Mosaic economy was simply that God Saves. True, Paul said in Mars hill that God at one time winked at (the Gentiles) ignorance. But I think that, at least with respect to Israel, the primary object of saving faith during the Mosaic economy was the sacrificial system. My reasons are three fold:
    a) In Leviticus, the description of the various sacrifices includes a "sin offering," and various terms used in relation to salvation.
    b) The sacrificial system was by grace. That is, a priest performed the sacrifice, not the observer. All they did was believe.
    3) The sinner in Luke who stood afar off watching the smoke of his sacrifice rising as he beat his breast, saying, "Lord, be propitious to me a sinner," seems to indicate that this event was related to salvation.

    So, although the fundamental concept of a dispensation was God's governance of mankind, not God's salvation of mankind, progressive revelation with regard to salvation advanced somewhat simultaneously with the onset of a new dispensation. SO . . . WHEN I SPEAK OF SALVATION AND DISPENSATIONALISM HEREIN, I trust you will all keep that in the context of above proviso.

    I think the primary issue (if it be possible to put one's finger on a single or primary issue with the crossless gospel) is really a redux of Zeno's paradox, an ancient Greek paradox. (And really a good one). And you will see that, in relation to the crossless gospel, this relates to a failure to understand dispensational theology. (I have been saving my discussion of Zeno's paradox for when I published on this subject, but Lou has prevailed on me to make a contribution here and now.

    Zeno posited the situation wherein the mighty Achilles and a turtle set out on a race. Achilles started at point A, and the turtle at point B. The race begins and both advance. By the time Achilles arrives at point B, the turtle is at point C. And by the time Achilles arrives at point C, the turtle is at point D.

    If this goes on forever, whenever Achilles gets to the point the turtle used to be at, the turtle will be at a next point. Therefore, the only way Achilles will ever reach the turtle is to arrive at the point the turtle "used to be at" and the point where the turtle currently is . . . at the same time!

    Of course, everyone knows that Achilles will eventually catch and pass the turtle. And Zeno was not denying this. His dilemma was simply that, to achieve what we know to be true, it seems that Achilles will have to be in two places at once.

    A few years ago, there was an article in Scientific American where someone claimed to have solved Zeno's paradox. I read the article, but went away hungry. I believe (if memory serves me correctly) that his answer was similar to Norman Geisler's . . . that a finite segment of space and time cannot be divided into an infinite number of segments.

    This may be true. But even if it is, it doesn't do much to solve Zeno's paradox. If I may adapt a term from the field of quantum mechanics, let's assume that space and time are demarked by infinitesimal "segmenta" (adapted from the term "quanta"). Even if this is true, when the turtle is at point "z" (at which Achilles catches the turtle), Achilles must first cross the spatial segmenta (from point "x" where he was at the beginning of "temporal segmenta" to point "y" (where the turtle was at the beginning of the temporal segmenta) and then, in the same temporal segmenta, cross the second spatial segmenta (from point "y" to point z) to catch the turtle.

    The point of Zeno's paradox in relation to the crossless gospel is simply this: When we posit a "Gedanken experiment" as Einstein called it (i.e., a "thought experiment" performed without a laboratory) wherein we can put the "microscope" on a transition point or border of a philosophical boundary, it gets blurry.

    This principal has long been used by political liberals to deny that absolutes exist in the moral government of mankind. For example let's assume, arguendo, that we share a right to bear arms belief in the second amendment. And let us further assume that we believe in the right to use arms to protect ourselves.

    Now, if you came upon a rapist in your house, with a knife at your twelve year old daughter's throat and raping her, few sane persons would deny us the right to shoot him. Let's call that "white." The shooting is absolutely justified.

    Now let's take the case of someone walking down the sidewalk in front of your home. Nicely dressed (no gang clothes), no gun, etc. To shoot such a man would be "black," that is, by any standard, incontrovertibly wrong.

    Now let's move into a gray area (such as Zeno found himself where Achilles catches the turtle). The man is on your front porch, and has a knife in his hand. Or he is standing in the front foyer of your home with a knife in his hand. Or he is standing in the foyer with a knife, and partly in the state of being disrobed.

    Two honest men may differ on exactly WHERE, and under WHAT circumstances one has the right to shoot him. But the existence of gray does not disprove the existence of black and white. Twilight does not disprove the existence of night and day. All it proves is that, during a transition from night to day, or from the sidewalk to your daughter's bedroom, there is a "gray area."

    The "twilight fallacy" (if there is gray, there can be no black or white) is commonly used, in some form, by political liberals to "refute" the existence of political or moral absolutes. But all it really proves is that they are smart enough to think of some circumstance in the gray area between black and white. (Not exactly rocket science. This usually requires an I.Q. of about 100.)

    Although dispensationalism may not "intrinsically" deal with different time periods (a point that Ryrie labors to proclaim in his book "Dispensationalism Today"), this seems to me a moot point since the dispensations did unfold with time. Whether or not this was "inherent", the fact is, that is how dispensations unfolded.

    Now if we "put the microscope" on the transition from the Mosaic economy to the Church Age, we see some strange things.

    In the upper room discourse, Jesus lamented "Have I been with you so long, and still you don't understand?" So "He breathed on them, and said, 'receive the spirit.' "

    Why? A norm for new testament believers? NO. The Holy Spirit was not yet given, and would not be freely given to believers until Pentecost. But by then, Jesus would be gone! He had much to teach them in his last 40 days after his resurrection, and they were as dumb as a bag of hammers. So he breathed on them and said "receive the Spirit." Funny things happen at dispensational transitions. And to formulate one's theology from the gray area is a recipe for starting a theologically aberrant movement, like Pentecostalism, or the Crossless gospel.

    Let's look further at the Holy Spirit in the dispensational transition.

    Let’s first consider Peter’s famous confession in Matthew 16:13-21.

    13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
    14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
    15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
    16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
    17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
    18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
    19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
    20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
    21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

    First, (and I can’t resist saying this), I note that the "rock" upon which the church is to be built is the same "salvation formula" repeated with metronomic regularity throughout the New Testament in some form or another . . . that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah) and the Son of the Living God.

    And, in this SAME SECTION, Jesus begins to clarify that, to accept Him as Messiah is NOT to accept Him as the reigning political Messiah, but the Suffering Messiah who was to offer Himself a sacrifice for the sins of the world. (See vs. 21 above). That is to say, Jesus divinity, and His atoning death and victorious resurrection are the message on which the church will be built. (Isn’t it amazing how those two truths keep cropping up in conjunction with the proclamation of salvation in the church age?)

    But I digress from the instant point . . . which is, that the crossless gospel is predicated on "the twilight fallicy" (a philosophical redux of Zeno’s paradox) . . . as applied to dispensational theology.

    The question at large is: What were the keys to? They were most explicitly NOT to the kingdom of heaven. The keys were "of" or "from" the kingdom of heaven. (epi tas kleis basalies.) That is transparently (for those who memorized all 23 different catagories of the genitive construction), a genitive of source. The keys come "from" the kingdom. (The authority given Peter was from heaven.) But what were the keys "to?"

    Look at the context. What is the antecedent? It is the church! Peter was given the keys to the church! (Gasp! Has Ron Shea become a papist?)

    But what is the church? It is the assembly of persons in the present dispensation who have been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ. (e.g. 1 Cor. 12). So it was Peter who was given the keys . . . the authority to unlock the church!

    Now let’s move forward to the book of Acts. Jesus told his Apostles to go into Jerusalem and Judaea, and Samaria, and unto the Uttermost parts of the earth. (Acts 1:8)

    Who is it that unlocks the church to the Jews ? Why, it’s Peter! (Acts 2:38). It is he who determines if, and how, they shall receive the Holy Spirit.

    Now moving forward to Acts 8:5, Phillip goes down to Samaria. In verse 12, they BELIEVED the message, and were even baptized! But when the apostles heard that Samaria received the gospel message, what did they do? They sent Peter and John down to them . . .
    15. "Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost,
    16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
    17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

    (For those who wonder what John had to do with this, the answer is, Peter was given the authority. If he required that one repent and be baptized to receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), God was behind him. If he invited John to assist him (Acts 8), God was behind him. God doesn’t micro manage us. When He gives us the responsibility to do something, He gives us the authority (up to a point) to use our own judgment in executing that plan, and to execute it as we see fit.

    So the church has been opened to the Jews and the Samaritans. Now let’s turn to the conversion of the first Gentile. In Acts 10:1, there is a Gentile named Cornelius, seeking God. And in Acts 10:5, he is told to send for a man named . . . John? Nope. Andrew? Nope! Paul? Nope! Bartholomew? Nope! Who? Why, it was Simon Peter! (Somehow, he keeps cropping up in the unlocking of the church. Isn’t that amazing!)

    And by Acts 8:39-43, Peter is preaching the remission of sins based on Jesus death and resurrection to whosoever believes! And in the very next verse, Cornelius was receiving the Holy Spirit. (Isn’t it amazing how Jesus charge in Matthew 16 is consistent with the account recorded in the Book of Acts?)

    Peter will never again be summoned to loose the Holy Spirit. The church had been unlocked. From that point onward, anyone who heard the gospel message and believed would receive the Holy Spirit, and instantly be baptized into the Body of Christ.

    Why the elaborate scheme involving Peter? It is hard for us to appreciate in modern culture how "ethno-centric" the Jews were. This was absolutely necessary to show the Jewish believers (and the Samaritan believers) that there was no fragmentation in the Body of Christ.

    We do see one other account of receiving the Holy Spirit owing to the dispensational transition in which we find ourselves. In Acts 19:1-6 we see saved men receiving the Holy Spirit. Peter is not summoned, for the church has been unlocked already. Paul lays hands on them to receive the Spirit. But why the belated reception of the Spirit? They had not believed on Jesus. They were Old Testament Saints. They had believed the message of John, who told them to believe on one who was to follow. Clearly saving faith. Clearly, not the message of the church age. They were saved, as Old Testament Saints were saved. But not part of the church. I often say to Pentecostals, "If you meet a two-thousand year old believer who happens to be an Old Testament Saint that never heard of Jesus, I’ll be the FIRST to condone your laying hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. In fact, I’ll lay hands on them myself!"

    Well, what’s the point of all this? Simply that whether it is Achilies catching (and passing) a turtle, or the morality of shooting a man in self defense, or looking at the tiniest of sub-atomic particles (i.e. leptons, such as electrons, positrons, and neutrinos, which are super small—a scale at which the Heisenberg uncertainty principle takes characteristics such as position, speed, mass, etc. out of the black-and-white, and places them in the "gray" area) . . . the fact is that between black and white, there is gray. Neils Bohr said, "Anyone who is not troubled by quantum mechanics has not understood it." The more I have studied the quantum theory, the more troubling I find it.

    But I do not try to take the rules of quantum mechanics from the Alice-in-wonderland sub-atomic world and make them the norm for objects I encounter in every day life. I do not honestly believe that Achiles will never catch the turtle simply because a strange dilmma (of being at point y and point z at the same time) seems to exist at the point Achiles catches the turtle. I do not believe in strict pacifism simply becaue there are gray areas about whether the use of deadly force is justified. I do not use a gray, Alice-in-Wonderland world to define the rules governing black and white. Rather, I use the simple black and white world to inform my interpretation of the gray area and transitional regions.

    In a similar way, I do not look to dispensational transitions to formulate my theology for the church age. Rather, I use the rules for the church age (everyone who believes receives the Holy Spirit), and the rules of the Old Testament (the Holy Spirit was given on a temporary basis to certain persons), to understand what was occurring in the transition period.

    To one reasonably skilled in dispensational theology, this transition zone is rather simple to navigate. To one who has never grasped the fundamentals of dispensational theology, the dispensational transitions are sticky-wickets indeed . . . wickets that stand up and walk around on two feet while you are trying to shoot your croquet-ball through them.

    "Alice thought she had never seen such a curious croquet-ground in her life; it was all ridges and furrows; the balls were live hedgehogs, the mallets live flamingoes, and the soldiers had to double themselves up and to stand on their hands and feet, to make the arches."

    "The chief difficulty Alice found at first was in managing her flamingo: she succeeded in getting its body tucked away, comfortably enough, under her arm, with its legs hanging down, but generally, just as she had got its neck nicely straightened out, and was going to give the hedgehog a blow with its head, it WOULD twist itself round and look up in her face, with such a puzzled expression that she could not help bursting out laughing: and when she had got its head down, and was going to begin again, it was very provoking to find that the hedgehog had unrolled itself, and was in the act of crawling away: besides all this, there was generally a ridge or furrow in the way wherever she wanted to send the hedgehog to, and, as the doubled-up soldiers were always getting up and walking off to other parts of the ground, Alice soon came to the conclusion that it was a very difficult game indeed."

    Imagined dilemmas in soteriology ("what did the disciples have to believe to be saved before Jesus died for their sins and rose from the dead?") or pneumatology ("have you received the Holy Spirit yet?") formulated by looking at dispensational transitions are easily resolved by using an understanding the soteriology and pneumatology of the previous dispensation, the soteriology and pneumatology of the new dispensation, and extrapolating these theologies into the transition period. Those who do not grasp (or refuse to apply) a sensible dispensational hermeneutic to the dispensational transitional periods are destined to wander around in the text of Holy Scripture feckless and confused. They will find the development of a coherent theology a "very difficult game indeed."

    For them, finding the gospel of salvation in the pages of the New Testament is as daunting as Zeno's paradox!

    Ron Shea

    ReplyDelete
  32. Kevin, you say,"You implied that Zane recognized some failing in CD - and it is not a perfect system, no system is - and that in his search to correct these failings he wandered into his great error."
    =================
    As this comments thread unfolds it is becoming evident that Zane had BEGUN to adopt a method of using the New Testament to interpret the Old. But, unlike you, I do not see that as a bad thing. I do not, though, think his journey was complete.

    Let's face it, you and I come to the table with very different assumptions and presuppositions. What I see in his drift into that way of doing theology, well, I see it as good, for that is also my way of doing theology. At the same time you point at his adopting this method as the beginning of his departure from the truth. I do not agree. I believe that, had he shed his conviction that one can come to Christ for salvation and then go on to live a life indifferent to the claims of Christ, his views of regeneration would have become more biblical; and his theological journey would have been complete. He would then have had a full grasp of the New Testament treatment of the New Covenant. I see his slavery to the notion that there is such a thing as a "carnal Christian" as the point where his theology went south.
    ===================
    "A plain reading of Scripture protects people against these types of error.

    What we see in Zane's case was that a plain reading was no longer pleasing to him."
    =============
    I disagree. See above. I do not share your conviction here. I see his adopting the above mentioned method as a love for the plain reading of scripture.
    ==============
    "I think we ought to, each and everyone of us, be aware of how close we are to falling into the same trap."
    ----------------
    His trap was not rethinking the earlier dispensationalist's view that there are spiritual Christians and carnal ones, thus gutting the biblical teaching on regeneration.

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  33. In a similar way, I do not look to dispensational transitions to formulate my theology for the church age. Rather, I use the rules for the church age (everyone who believes receives the Holy Spirit), and the rules of the Old Testament (the Holy Spirit was given on a temporary basis to certain persons), to understand what was occurring in the transition period.Ron-

    That was an amazing post. And it got me thinking.

    More than once and by more than one person it has been noted that ZH has followed a Covenantal line of interpretation in his theology. Of course, so does the the (supposed) Dispensationalist John MacArthur. So I was wondering how your black, white, and gray theme might apply to JM and LS. Such as with his view of the message contained in the four Gospels, concluding that the saving gospel message is "turn from sin and follow Jesus."

    This thread is probably not the place for it, but I wonder if at some point you would consider doing an article on JM and LS in light of your black, white, and gray concept?

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  34. Men:

    IMO, the Hodges inspired reductionist assault on the content of saving faith is so profound it can’t be laid (primarily) at the doorstep of CD no matter your position on that issue. To suggest CD is the primary culprit (so to speak) for the Crossless gospel is to IMO blame shift.

    There are a number of issues one may surmise that lead him and his followers to adopt the Crossless gospel. Nevertheless, he created what in the last two years has become fast shrinking cell of theological extremists. The GES soteriology is so far out of balance with the Scriptures they can’t be taken seriously in any discussion of the Gospel. The GES is an aberrant movement and is recognized as such across a broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity.

    Finally, I did like this from Ron Shea, “….a vested emotional stake in Zane’s validation of them…

    In the last 2 years that I have dealt with the advocates of the Hodges/Wilkin Crossless and/or Promise-Only gospel you become very much aware that their emotional ties to Hodges will not let them, even for a moment, consider Hodges may have been wrong.

    Numerous times the CG has been shown to be antithetical to the Scriptures. All of the GES mantra arguments have been thrashed from the Scriptures. All they have left now are the emotion packed, personal ad hominen attacks such as we have seen for months.

    They are trying to breathe life back in GES, but it is in cardiac arrest as it should be. Once the truth of GES reductionism is discovered by those who may not have been aware of just how deep and egregious the GES errors are, many recoil and withdraw.

    Some like da Rosa, Myers, Jim Johnson, Matthew, Alvin, Gary, Diane, Rose and Michele have tragically succumbed to, and to one degree or another, fallen into the trap of the GES Crossless gospel.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  35. On Sunday evening Part 2, The “Deconstructionist” Gospel: It’s No Coincidence will be published.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  36. Lou and Kevin,
    Our way of doing theology is different, yes. But I wish to take a time out to applaud you both for all the time and effort it has taken you to lovingly appeal to those trapped in that system to rethink their ways and to come out of it. I know that you both believe my system to be equally as evil as theirs, and we have crossed swords before, but I just want to lend a hand in this thread because I have dear friends caught up in that system and any effort by anybody to "pull them out" gets my approval.
    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dear Jan:
    Thank you for your kind words. Although this thread is not the place for a discussion of John MacArthur and LS, the web site certainly is. I'll have to think about your question. I tend to write rather long posts, so it takes a lot of "butt kicking" by Lou to get me to post. But barring the 2nd coming, I promise to keep it on a front burner. Thanks again.
    Ron Shea

    ReplyDelete
  38. "If I may adapt a term from the field of quantum mechanics, let's assume that space and time are demarked by infinitesimal "segmenta" (adapted from the term "quanta"). Even if this is true, when the turtle is at point "z" (at which Achilles catches the turtle), Achilles must first cross the spatial segmenta (from point "x" where he was at the beginning of "temporal segmenta" to point "y" (where the turtle was at the beginning of the temporal segmenta) and then, in the same temporal segmenta, cross the second spatial segmenta (from point "y" to point z) to catch the turtle."

    That was a very exciting read. I do tend to agree with you, although quantum mechanics might say the best solution would come from folding space and time, as what you wrote implies. Of course the Biblical analogy would be that the cross is that folding point. One could argue that would negate more than two dispensations. I don't think so since the "fold point" would be the same no matter how many folds were made since in effect point a could be said to be stationary with each fold bringing points b through whatever to that initial point a. Exciting read though.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'll have to think about your question. I tend to write rather long posts, so it takes a lot of "butt kicking" by Lou to get me to post. But barring the 2nd coming, I promise to keep it on a front burner.Bueno.

    I shall ask Lou to put on his pointy toed boots. :)

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  40. Jan:

    It is funny with Ron. He is brilliant and I have to keep chanting to him about thread comments, "blogging is brevity, blogging is brevity."


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  41. What a post by Ron Shea. That guy makes me think.

    Jimmy

    ReplyDelete
  42. I started laughing out loud when I read Lou's last blog.
    Lou, I'm afraid it's hopeless!
    When I was a boy, my family used to say, "He fills you in with so much background that the foreground goes underground." And, "Generally speaking, he's . . . generally speaking."
    Ron

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ron:

    That got me laughing out loud.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  44. Lou, I'm afraid it's hopeless!
    When I was a boy, my family used to say, "He fills you in with so much background that the foreground goes underground." And, "Generally speaking, he's . . . generally speaking."
    Ron
    Ron,

    It's perfectly OK to use a lot of words as long as what you are saying is worth hearing.

    After all, Mozart was accused of using too many notes. So you are in good company.

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  45. My Dearest Jan:

    You are clearly a woman of exquisite breeding, top flight education, and crystiline clarity of thought!
    (Smile)

    Ron

    ReplyDelete