tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post3273901947389800166..comments2024-02-27T03:28:22.684-06:00Comments on In Defense of the Gospel: Zane Hodges, “Legalism is Not a Very Nice Word.” (Part 1)Lou Martuneachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-89802555236332860642008-10-23T12:59:00.000-05:002008-10-23T12:59:00.000-05:00Delivered, no problem. If you have any other quest...Delivered, no problem. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-14056215503478546032008-10-22T10:47:00.000-05:002008-10-22T10:47:00.000-05:00Greg, Thank you for taking the time to respond to ...Greg, Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. My apologies for not mentioning this sooner.bellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15263644056413736693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-45853460199025395762008-10-20T20:27:00.000-05:002008-10-20T20:27:00.000-05:00Delivered,In order to be born again I believe a pe...Delivered,<BR/><BR/>In order to be born again I believe a person must believe that Jesus Christ is the unique God-man who died for our sins/rose again and provides reconciliation to God through faith in Him alone. If he believes this message, even if he denies other orthodox doctrines, he will still be born again. I believe the answer is that simple. <BR/><BR/>In terms of salvation, there is no distinction between not believing and denying these essential truths of the gospel. In this post, I will define "denying" in terms of inward rejection. This is to clarify that I am NOT speaking in terms of confession before men as Peter, for example, denied Christ three times before men.<BR/><BR/>John 3:18 is a verse that shows this principle. There is no distinction between "not believing" and "denying" these essential truths. This verse indicates that there is belief and unbelief. You either believe or you do not. Only the person who "believes" is not condemned. Those who do not believe are condemned. As far as these two categories are concerned, "unbelief" would include both what people see as "ignorant" unbelief and purposeful rejection.<BR/><BR/>What does this have to do with answering your question?<BR/><BR/>It goes back to the epistemological question, "how do you know what a person must believe to be saved?" In light of the previously mentioned principle, we should expect to find consistency in Scripture on what must be believed whether it speaks about believing a message in the positive (believing) or negative (not believing/rejecting) sense.<BR/><BR/>When you examine Scripture, it is consistent on this point. For example, Scripture teaches one must believe in Christ's Deity to be saved both with positive (e.g. John 3:16; 20:31; 1John 5:5) and negative statments (e.g. John 3:18; 8:24). It teaches one must believe in Christ's death for our sins/resurrection with both positive (e.g. John 6:51, 54; 1Cor. 1:18b, 21; 15:3-4; Rom. 4:24-25; 10:9) and negative statements (e.g. John 6:53; Acts 13:41; 1Cor. 1:23; 15:14). It teaches one must accept God's gift of salvation by faith rather than works in both positive (e.g. Gal. 2:16; Rom. 4:5) and negative statements (e.g. Gal. 1:6-9; 2:21; Rom. 4:4). It teaches one must believe in Christ incarnate in both positive (e.g. John 1:10-12; 3:14-18; 6:47-51; 20:31; Acts 13:38; 1John 5:5-6) and negative statements (e.g. John 6:53; 1John 4:2-3).<BR/><BR/>Therefore, if someone claims a person could not be born again if he denies a certain doctrine (e.g. the Virgin Birth), we would ask, "where does Scripture teach that this truth is essential to the saving message in either the positive (statements about believing) or negative sense (statements about denying)? And would it not be inconsistent with what we have seen to say someone can be born again while not knowing about the Virgin Birth while they could not be born again while rejecting the Virgin birth?<BR/><BR/>It is true that Scripture warns against believing in "another Jesus" (2Cor. 11:4). One error is manifested in the crossless gospel position which maintains Jesus is correctly identified as the object of faith by the letters "J-E-S-U-S" despite any conceivable misconceptions about Him. Yet it would be equally erroneous to assert that ANY misconceptions or the denial of ANY truths about Jesus constitute "another Jesus" as the object of faith for salvation.<BR/><BR/>Let me give you an example. Let's say a person speaks about someone named "George Bush" who is the current President of the United States, who led the USA into war in Afganistan and Iraq, and who was the Governor of Arkansas. This person has a misconception about George Bush (i.e. Bush was actually the Governor of Texas, not Arkansas). But does that mean he has a "different George Bush" in mind? Obviously not. This is true even if he directly denied Bush was the Governor of Texas. However, if he spoke about someone named "George Bush" who currently attends highschool in Pensacola, FL, it would be obvious to most people that he has a "another" George Bush in mind.<BR/><BR/>This example illustrates the error of both the crossless position which claims the mere mention of a person's name sufficiently identifies Him and another error which claims the denial of any important fact about Christ creates "a different Jesus".<BR/><BR/>We must not rely on our own subjective guesses to determine what is and what is not essential to correctly identify Jesus Christ for salvation. As we have already seen, Scripture tells us exactly what truths constitute the Gospel and correctly identify Jesus Christ as our object of faith for salvation. Like we already observed, there is consistency in Scripture on what must be believed whether it speaks about believing a message in the positive (believing) or negative (not believing/rejecting) sense.<BR/><BR/>One last point. I stated, "if he believes this message, even if he denies other orthodox doctrines, he will still be born again". Denial of certain truths inherent to the message outlined would mean the person does not believe "this message" to start with. So I believe the statement I made in the first sentence is perfectly consistent.<BR/><BR/>-- GregGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-1222719217335533682008-10-19T20:34:00.000-05:002008-10-19T20:34:00.000-05:00You wrote, "Yet Hodges does not quote a single Fre...You wrote, "Yet Hodges does not quote a single Free Grace proponent who claims the lost must believe in the Trinity, virgin birth, Second Coming, or any of the orthodox doctrines enumerated above, in order to be saved."<BR/><BR/>Do you think that a person can deny these truths and be born again? Thanks.bellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15263644056413736693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-40619535443026855742008-10-16T23:21:00.000-05:002008-10-16T23:21:00.000-05:00Stephen:You wrote and I fully agree that, "ZH and ...Stephen:<BR/><BR/>You wrote and I fully agree that, "<I>ZH and crew do not represent authentic Free Grace -- it is a shame that many are still mislead by their illegitimate claim to the honorable name and heritage of genuine Free Grace."</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-23191914414284145792008-10-16T18:09:00.000-05:002008-10-16T18:09:00.000-05:00Hey Lou and Greg, thanks for this. This is an exce...Hey Lou and Greg, thanks for this. This is an excellent introduction and glimpse of what's to come. I meant to comment earlier but I've been in Orlando all week at an IT conference and they've provided plenty to do, including reserving the entire Hollywood Studios theme park for just conference attendees one night. "Rockin' Roller Coaster" mean anything to anybody?<BR/><BR/>I think this quote says a lot: "Quite obviously Hodges is at war with the Free Grace community at large. In his own words, “In ecclesiastical circles, to call someone a legalist is to hurl an insult of the first magnitude. If someone says, ‘You’re a legalist,’ the instinctive reply would be, ‘Them’s fighting words!”[5]"<BR/><BR/>ZH is not using the term to express simple but strong disagreement, he has hurled what he himself believes is an insult, "of the first magnitude", at all of evangelical Christianity outside of his own increasingly-cultish little group. It is logically inconsistent for him/them to proclaim they are the rightful heirs to the Free Grace mantle while simultaneously flinging such insults at the beliefs that have defined authentic Free Grace from the beginning. ZH and crew do not represent authentic Free Grace -- it is a shame that many are still mislead by their illegitimate claim to the honorable name and heritage of genuine Free Grace.<BR/><BR/>Looking forward to more, thanks Greg.Orangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13385339200643211924noreply@blogger.com