May 3, 2009

Men Consistently “Saw the Light” of Zane’s Reasoning, Part 2

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

We continue with part two of the new series by Ron Shea. For Part 1 see- What Turned Hodges to this Profound (Deconstructionist) Error?

The “Deconstructionist” Gospel: Its No Coincidence


Excerpt from Part 1,
Hodges’s position on repentance is illogical, and lexically and theologically indefensible.
Zane’s Crossless/Deityless, “deconstructionist” gospel is likewise indefensible. Few (if any) men who were NOT of Zane’s inner circle of friends read his arguments and came away convinced. But his inner circle was!

In every case, when Zane Hodges adopted a position that left most free-grace advocates in stunned disbelief, the same group of inner circle men consistently “saw the light” of Zane’s reasoning. And in every case, they were men approved by Zane, and who therefore had a motive to perpetuate that validation, and not short-circuit it.

This is not a coincidence. Zane’s inner circle, many being men of able minds consistently “saw the light” . . . because IMO they sought the approval of Zane more than the approval of God.

As the waves spread outward from a pebble thrown in a pond, the “second circle” were those who may have met Zane, but more significantly, enjoyed the friendship and/or validation of one of Zane’s inner circle.

When Peter played the hypocrite, and would not eat with the gentiles, Paul saw it as no small matter.
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed,” (Gal. 2:11).

When leaders are in error, those who respect their leadership will often follow their error. Paul withstood Peter, “to the face,” called him out, and as we would say in the Navy, “dressed him down.”

Very few believers outside of the GES group have come across Bob Wilkin’s writings on the web, or in print and walked away persuaded of the logic. But those with an emotional stake in Zane, or Bob, John Niemela, or others, have been seduced (or blinded) by the approval they receive from men whose approval they covet.

This really brings to mind two different groups of people, the “Crossless” gospel crowd in the GES, and the rest in the Free Grace camp who on biblical grounds have rejected and taken a stand against the errors and spread of the “Crossless” gospel.

END Part 2, Please continue to Part 3


  1. "Very few believers outside of the GES group have come across Bob Wilkin’s writings on the web, or in print and walked away persuaded of the logic."

    Yup, that about sums it up. GES' "logic" is blatantly flawed. Their system starts with a series of unproven assumptions and builds from there. In ancient computer terms, it's referred to as GIGO; Garbage In, Garbage Out.

  2. Lou:

    I fear the second post was so short it wasn't comment worthy. Maybe you should conflate the second and third parts into one section.


  3. Elijah (Ron):

    Probably should, I'll look into it once I get home from Florida.


  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Stephen:

    IMO, even the least amount of biblical common sense would be enough to alert the unsuspecting that there are inherent problems and/or flaws with GES reductionism.

    The Crossless gospel surely does NOT build on a biblical foundation. I do like Ron's term, "Deconstructionist."