tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post7383131917905946650..comments2024-02-27T03:28:22.684-06:00Comments on In Defense of the Gospel: Tragedy of the "Crossless" Gospel, Pt. 2Lou Martuneachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-36796439516708173562007-07-14T10:41:00.000-05:002007-07-14T10:41:00.000-05:00Don:I understand "busy." I respect that we all ha...Don:<BR/><BR/>I understand "busy." I respect that we all have commitments to family and employer, I am no different.<BR/><BR/>I love Chafer's quote!<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "<I>Why would a person want eternal life, if they were not bound for eternal death?. Yeah. . . I think they have to know that they are going to hell (i.e. "perish" in John 3:16), because they are condemned (John 3:17) Otherwise I don't think they are ready to believe in Him</I>."<BR/><BR/>That is well articulated, and I'm with you 100% on that. This, however, is where I have a problem with statements by men like Antonio, who wrote, in answer to the same question "<I>'No.' A lost man does not need to be aware or agree that he is a sinner in order to be saved</I>."<BR/><BR/>And I disagree with Antonio for the very reason you cited above.<BR/><BR/>Let’s talk more when you have time. I would not mind a phone call. If you e-mail me I’ll send you my cell number. See my e-mail link under the cover of my book.<BR/><BR/>God bless you,<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-7829885192150251072007-07-14T10:10:00.000-05:002007-07-14T10:10:00.000-05:00Lou.I have been totally swamped at home and at wor...Lou.<BR/><BR/>I have been totally swamped at home and at work. . <BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/>>>>>>>><BR/>Don:<BR/><BR/>I am "borrowing" this question from Kevl. He used it at anoter site, but it remains unanswered by the person to whom it was directed.<BR/><BR/>"Does a sinner need to be aware and or agree with the fact they are a sinner in order to be saved?"<BR/><BR/>What is yur opinion?<BR/><<<<<<BR/><BR/>Why would a person want eternal life, if they were not bound for eternal death?. Yeah. . . I think they have to know that they are going to hell (i.e. "perish" in John 3:16), because they are condemned (John 3:17) Otherwise I don't think they are ready to believe in Him. <BR/><BR/>L.S. Chafer said, "Anybody can come up with a plan where good people go to heaven. Only God could come up with a plan whereby bad people can go to heaven." <BR/><BR/>- Don Reiher<BR/>(I will try to get back. . . I am really busy)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-22675709868407882332007-07-11T18:31:00.000-05:002007-07-11T18:31:00.000-05:00Jeremy:You wrote, "...no contact with either of th...Jeremy:<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "<I>...no contact with either of these men within the last two years</I>."<BR/><BR/>IMO it is not entirely necessary to review a man's doctrine only after a personal interaction. Both Hodges and Wilkin are on record in various/numerous publications. Their personal doctrinal positions are in print in the public arena.<BR/><BR/>Two thoughts from my personal experience:<BR/><BR/>1) When my book <I>In Defense of the Gospel</I> came out it was being commented on (positive and negative). Many of the negative criticisms came from men who had not only never met me, but did not even read the book.<BR/><BR/>2) During my research on Lordship Salvation, and once after my book was released, I tried to contact Dr. MacArthur directly. The first time I received a reply from an associate pastor, but was not able to get beyond him. With the second attempt to reach Dr. MacArthur via e-mail and/or on line I was told that Dr. MacArthur will not discuss his position on LS outside of his written works.<BR/><BR/>If Stegall or Rokser were to ask for a personal meeting with Hodges or Wilkin to discuss the “Crossless” gospel, would they agree to meet?<BR/><BR/>You seem to be in a position to ask Hodges/Wilkin about this. Would you please consider doing so? You could act as an intermediary.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-66653418974325644682007-07-11T18:15:00.000-05:002007-07-11T18:15:00.000-05:00Jeremy:You wrote, "...it would be nice to know whi...Jeremy:<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "<I>...it would be nice to know which of these <B>men he is attacking...</B></I>."<BR/><BR/>I try to be careful about using terms such as, "attacking" men. I believe we all agree that doctrine is the subject under review not necessarily the men. This way there is no suggestion that there is a personality clash underway or motives being called into question (<B>Matt. 7:1-2</B>). <BR/><BR/>Granted, if a man's doctrine comes into question, then the man also comes under some scrutiny. Doctrine, however, must remain the focus of discussion and criticism.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-42173757860776573152007-07-11T17:16:00.000-05:002007-07-11T17:16:00.000-05:00Hello Jeremy:Thanks for the notes.IMO, Stegall has...Hello Jeremy:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the notes.<BR/><BR/>IMO, Stegall has documented the theology of the so-called "crossless" gospel by Hodges and reviews it fairly.<BR/><BR/>If you have some hard-evidence that there is a misrepresentation would you please post an example here. I'm sure no one wants to intentionally misrepresent a brother in Christ. If it were done inadvertently I'm sure the men would rush to make the correction and offer a sincere apology.<BR/><BR/>If Hodges or Wilkin come out with a reply I would appreciate you sending me an e-mail notification. Their response may define and/or clarify the controversy. I would be happy to link it from here.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-37456913599990298812007-07-11T16:55:00.000-05:002007-07-11T16:55:00.000-05:00Hi all, I just read through the ongoing debate, an...Hi all, <BR/><BR/>I just read through the ongoing debate, and wanted to weigh in. I have read all the articles listed above (by Zane, Bob, Tom, and Dennis), and believe that Tom and Dennis have severely misrepresented Bob and Zane. <BR/><BR/>Even the two "clarifications" by Dennis only further muddle the issue. For example, it would be nice to know which of these men he is attacking has stonewalled him, since both Bob and Zane have said say that they have had no contact with either of these men within the last two years. Maybe Dennis has a different definition of "stonewall" than I do...<BR/><BR/>Anyway, there are rumors of a response from Bob and Zane, which I will let people know about in my own blog at www.tillhecomes.org when I learn more.Jeremy Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01778420126998625079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-3681453763900809252007-07-10T17:58:00.000-05:002007-07-10T17:58:00.000-05:00Don:I am "borrowing" this question from Kevl. He ...Don:<BR/><BR/>I am "borrowing" this question from Kevl. He used it at anoter site, but it remains unanswered by the person to whom it was directed.<BR/><BR/>"<I>Does a sinner need to be aware and or agree with the fact they are a sinner in order to be saved</I>?"<BR/><BR/>What is yur opinion?<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-63853525623996768952007-07-10T17:41:00.000-05:002007-07-10T17:41:00.000-05:00How are these "Heresy" articles helping anybody? T...<I>How are these <B>"Heresy"</B> articles helping anybody? <B>The Lordship folks will probably laugh and say</B>, "See those No Lordship idiots. . . they cannot agree with themselves because they are all heretics." I do not want our family to have to leave ANOTHER church over the Lordship issue. There are no Free Grace Churches here. Now that <B>the waters have been muddied</B>, I doubt that anything good will come of this.</I><BR/><BR/>Don:<BR/><BR/>I don’t think that paragraph serves you or the discussion very well.<BR/><BR/>Why do you care what a Lordship advocate thinks? Their doctrine is wrong, end of story. So what if they gloat? I appears you are wrapped up in personalities and movements. <BR/><BR/>We are talking about a man, Hodges, with a limited following of his particular interpretation of the gospel. This discussion has nothing to do with the Lordship interpretation of the gospel. Hodges has made numerous statements on the Gospel and repentance that are of great concern to a great many men in the non-Lordship arena.<BR/><BR/>When you speak of "<I>the waters have been muddied</I>,” it has been the teaching of Zane Hodges that has muddied the waters.<BR/><BR/>“Good” can come of this. I am hopeful Hodges will reevaluate what he has been teaching. He is off center in his doctrine on the Gospel, and some are following him in this error. The motive of correction must always be recovery; that is what the Bible teaches. If recovery is not possible, the departure is the eventual solution.<BR/><BR/>Kind regards,<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-44884996562240952322007-07-10T17:31:00.000-05:002007-07-10T17:31:00.000-05:00KevI still have a hard time believing that it is a...Kev<BR/><BR/>I still have a hard time believing that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for God to bring about the spiritual rebirth of a person with the the message of John 3:16, ESPECIALLY during the time between the death of Christ, and the time when the news of this 8th sign spread to a country or a town the first time. <BR/><BR/>I hear testimony after testimony of how God uses all kinds of obscure Biblical texts and events to get through to people. God's Word is powerful!<BR/><BR/>If I am wrong about John 3:16 it does not matter, as I tend to give unsaved folks too much information anyway. The John 3:16 only example is just a hypothetical case. If people want to give a lesson on Christology to unsaved people, fine. If a person is dying in front of you, I would keep it very short! As long as you communicate that a person is bound for hell without believing in Christ, and gets eternal life by faith alone in Christ alone, and don't give a Lordship Salvation Gospel. . . I say AMEN!<BR/><BR/>I have heard testimonies from missionaries who tell stories of how they get to an unreached people, and that some of the folk got born again through some miraculous revelation. Again. . . the exception and not the rule. In my world, there are loose ends, and God never fits into my little theological boxes. I have learned the hard way how little I am and how big God is.<BR/><BR/>Again. . . Salvation through John 3:16 alone. . . .EXCEPTION, not the rule.<BR/>Neither Zane Hodges, or Bob Wilkins, or anybody else in GES believes in or gives a so-called Crossless Gospel in their teaching and preaching. If they do, then they are disagreeing with the GES doctrinal statement. <BR/><BR/>- Don<BR/>Host of GES WebboardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-23399603621061178342007-07-10T17:29:00.000-05:002007-07-10T17:29:00.000-05:00Don:It appears you have departed, so just a few co...Don:<BR/><BR/>It appears you have departed, so just a few comments, that I may expand on later.<BR/><BR/>No one said use of the term "eternal life" is wrong, but Hodges uses it to the exclusion of the terms saved, born again, salvation etc. IMO, this is believe he has focused to finely on John's gospel, and ass I have noted before, it seems to the point of viewing John's Gospel as though it trumps the rest of the New Testament on the doctrine of soteriology.<BR/><BR/>2) I don't recall using the word, "heresy," which you put in quotations as though I or some else did use that term. I don’t recall using that term, but what I am reading by Hodges is heresy's first cousin. It seems to me that Hodges has, over the years, gone deeper and deeper into what some would call a "reductionist" gospel. <BR/><BR/>3) I have documented how Hodges has shifted his doctrine on repentance, from a weak interpretation to a no repentance position (<I>Harmony With God</I>). For Hodges repentance is no longer part of the answer to the question; What must I do to be saved? That is another change/reduction from him in recent years. For Hodges repentance is no longer a “change of mind,” which is by any balanced biblical perspective the most accepted definition of repentance.<BR/><BR/>4) Your checklist, and “knowing all the facts” illustration is creating a false dilemma. I know of no responsible Bible teacher who takes anything near that kind of approach. It seems to me this is a creation, made to demonize what is not commonly found, to build a case for the “crossless” gospel. It is no different that the Lordship camp saying everyone is preaching an Easy-Believism message, which paves the way for their answer. Both are false dilemma arguments.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-39110493457169801562007-07-10T13:45:00.000-05:002007-07-10T13:45:00.000-05:00Men:I may not get back today. If I do it will be ...Men:<BR/><BR/>I may not get back today. If I do it will be brief.<BR/><BR/>I have read with interest your comments.<BR/><BR/>God bless you,<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-11007731985283125922007-07-10T12:35:00.000-05:002007-07-10T12:35:00.000-05:00Hi Don,Paul is clear what the Gospel is. John 3:16...Hi Don,<BR/><BR/>Paul is clear what the Gospel is. John 3:16 says that Jesus was "given" and was God's "only begotten Son". This is an explanation of The Christ. <BR/><BR/>The proof-text used to say that the Gospel of John is sufficient for preaching the Gospel (which I believe it can be with the education given by Paul's writings) is John 20:31 <I>"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."</I><BR/><BR/>You'll notice that John's intention is that you believe that He is the Christ... oops so much for no Death and Resurrection. It's found right in the proof-text used to try to say we can ignore it. <BR/><BR/>With the understanding of the rest of Scripture yes John 3:16 can save. But even I Cor 15:1-8 can not save with out the Spirit Convicting and Revealing. <BR/><BR/>Eternal Life is a byproduct of Salvation which is a Product of Justification. We are baptized into Jesus' Death and therefore Justified, then because we are in His death we are also in His ressurrection and thereby Saved, now since we have been saved from death we have Eternal Life. <BR/><BR/>Eternal Life is a byproduct - an amazing one but it is not the Gospel. <BR/><BR/>The Gospel is the Good News that Jesus died for our sins and rose from among the dead. This is the same Gospel that Paul preaches throughout all his writings to all the Churches. It is also the same Gospel that Peter preaches, and John as well - no matter how much some may wish to ignore the fact. <BR/><BR/>You can not be saved while you are still proud. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. This is seen front cover to back cover in the Scriptures. You can not be saved until you know He died for your own sins, and rose from the dead. <BR/><BR/>I didn't say this. Paul has. And Paul is the one who was given the Gospel face to face with Jesus.. so I don't think I'm about to argue with him or Him. <BR/><BR/>If an algebra teacher doesn't outright say that 1+1=2 does that mean you don't need an understanding of basic addition to pass your Algebra class? Come on Agnostics have better arguments than this. <BR/><BR/>This is just the surface of an indepth response to the Crossless Gospel I'm working on.<BR/><BR/>I hope you're not offended.. that's not my intent.. but I do hope your heart is pricked and that you are smarting from the sting of it. The Gospel is precious. We can not play loosely with it.<BR/><BR/>KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-29338128513491583752007-07-10T10:03:00.000-05:002007-07-10T10:03:00.000-05:00LouIs it heresy to believe that a person could get...Lou<BR/><BR/>Is it heresy to believe that a person could get eternal life by believing in Christ alone apart from the Death and Resurrection of Christ, BEFORE Christ's death and resurrection? I hope you say no, because the disciples did not seem to understand.<BR/><BR/>Is it heresy to believe a person could get eternal life without believing in His death and resurrection 1 minute after Christ died? They did not have CNN back then you know. How about one day? How about 1 minute after the Resurrection? How about a few days after the Resurrection? If one person in history ever got eternal life by belief in Jesus apart from a good understanding of His death and resurrection, then you would have to admit it is possible. We are talking "bare minimum" or "exception" and NOT the rule. It is like trying to say that miracles are impossible today, because they were for a transitional time. You can still be a good dispensationalist, who believes in progress of revelation, and allow for exceptions, you know.<BR/><BR/>I don't think God is going to have a checklist, and say, Hmm. you believed in me 1 week after I rose from the dead, and you are not trusting in your works. . . but lets go through the checklist. Did you know about my death, hmm. Did you know about my resurrection, hmm. . . I'mmmm sorry, you can't enter heaven. It is silly to talk in such terms. That is part of Zane's case.<BR/><BR/>John 3:16 used to be the most well known verse for a long time, and a lot of folks have gotten saved by such a simple proposition. It seems more radical, to say that a person CANNOT possibly be saved by the message of John 3:16 by itself, than by saying that person COULD possibly be saved by the message John 3:16 by itself. I think we should not limit what God can do through his Word. That is also Zane's case.<BR/><BR/>However. . . since everyone does not know all the facts about Christ, (I still don't) I think the focus in Scripture is that we are trusting in a Savior. . . Jesus. . . and whatever facts we have. The facts may be sketchy, and may actually be inaccurate, but I think God is mainly interested in us trusting in Him alone, and not relying on our works.<BR/><BR/>As I always say. . . when we get to heaven, we are in for a surprise when we see who is and who isn't there!<BR/><BR/>How are these "Heresy" articles helping anybody? The Lordship folks will probably laugh and say, "See those No Lordship idiots. . . they cannot agree with themselves because they are all heretics." I do not want our family to have to leave ANOTHER church over the Lordship issue. There are no Free Grace Churches here. Now that the waters have been muddied, I doubt that anything good will come of this.<BR/><BR/>Goodbye. . . I have said too much already.<BR/>Don ReiherAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-69370847836958889212007-07-10T10:01:00.000-05:002007-07-10T10:01:00.000-05:00LouThe reason everyone should use the term "have e...Lou<BR/><BR/>The reason everyone should use the term "have eternal life" is because it is more clear than "saved." The original words translated "save" "saved" and "salvation" have a broad semantic range. Most people think that every time they see the word save, saved or salvation, in the Bible, that it is referring to eternal life. That is where a lot of Arminian Theology comes from. 1 Cor 15:2 (holding fast to be saved), Matt 10:22 (enduring to the end to be saved). Many folks mistakenly think that "saved" means "get to heaven." It is almost always linked to perseverance, human will or effort. Therefore, it cannot be referring to the "free gift" which is apart from works. <BR/><BR/>Dr. Radmacher's book, Salvation, goes into great detail on the various aspects of this. He preaches that the "saved" (those who have eternal life) need to be "saved" (i.e. grow in sanctification here and now).<BR/><BR/>In each use of the word for "save", you have to look at the context to see what the nature of the salvation is, and what the person or persons are being saved from. It almost ALWAYS is referring to deliverance from the consequences of sin here even in those passages where it is talking to those who are really "saved" (i.e. have eternal life). It is much easier to refer to "eternal life" than have to explain what kind of salvation you are referring to each time.<BR/><BR/> The word "eternal life" is a technical term that always refers to the spiritual life which is given to a person who is born again, who is going to heaven when they die. It is never gained by perseverance, human will or effort.<BR/><BR/>- DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-83728438477158461302007-07-10T09:58:00.000-05:002007-07-10T09:58:00.000-05:00Don,Did you happen to read Dennis Rokser's TWO CLA...Don,<BR/><BR/>Did you happen to read Dennis Rokser's TWO CLARIFICATIONS in the latest Grace Family Journal as his article interacts with criticisms and concerns like you addressed in your first email comments about Tom Stegall's article? Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-21791126846492688982007-07-10T06:32:00.000-05:002007-07-10T06:32:00.000-05:00Don:You men keep repeating the phrase, “eternal li...Don:<BR/><BR/>You men keep repeating the phrase, “eternal life.” Nothing inherently wrong with that; it is a Bible term and doctrine.<BR/><BR/>From what I can tell, however, “eternal life” is used by you men almost to the exclusion of the terms “saved, born again, salvation.” <BR/><BR/>I see “eternal life” as a benefit and result of being born again through believing Jesus died on the cross for my sins, rose again (1 Cor. 15:3-4) and depending on Him to forgive and save me from my sins.<BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-65013944703023758412007-07-10T06:29:00.000-05:002007-07-10T06:29:00.000-05:00Don:You wrote, "Isn't his case also that many (mos...Don:<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "<I>Isn't his case also that many (most?) Americans believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, and rose again, but they are going to hell anyway? Isn't his case that the reason most Americans are going to hell is because they do not believe alone in Christ alone for their eternal life. Many believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose from the dead, but they are also trusting in their good works to get them to heaven.”</I><BR/><BR/>First, I don’t think very many Americans today believe much of anything about Jesus, the cross or His resurrection. Most certainly don’t “believe” in the biblical sense of the word anything about Jesus. The public school system and secularization of America in general has seen to that.<BR/><BR/>Second, there are just as many that believe Jesus is the Creator and Deity, but are on the way to Hell. The last portion of your note above is the key, they are adding “good works” to the gospel, or as with LS, they add an upfront promise to do the “good works” as a requirement for salvation.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-79154534675020301732007-07-10T06:27:00.000-05:002007-07-10T06:27:00.000-05:00Don:I was at work 14 hours yesterday, sorry I coul...Don:<BR/><BR/>I was at work 14 hours yesterday, sorry I could not get back to you sooner. I’ll reply in separate posts to keep this organized.<BR/><BR/>You wrote, <I>“At the time John 6:47 was written, Christ had died and risen from the dead. Lets say that Zane Hodges overstated his case. What is his case? Is it not that John 6:47 is the Word of God, and that it is powerful enough to accomplish what God wants?”</I><BR/><BR/>“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life,” (<B>John 6:47</B>).<BR/><BR/>No, John 6:47, in and of itself, is not enough to “accomplish” and show a lost man what he must “believe” to be born again. <BR/><BR/>There is nothing misleading about John 6:47, but you do not have enough information in that verse to lead a man to Christ. <BR/><BR/>The gospel according to Hodges appears to be that all a lost man must believe is- Jesus gives eternal life and he is born again. That is an incomplete message!<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-74068844372966449892007-07-09T08:29:00.000-05:002007-07-09T08:29:00.000-05:00Oops. At the end of the first paragraph, I meant ...Oops. At the end of the first paragraph, I meant to say<BR/><BR/>"It is just that belief in it those essential facts of the Gospel does NOT mean a person has eternal life."<BR/><BR/>- DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-36331685032976710252007-07-09T08:14:00.000-05:002007-07-09T08:14:00.000-05:00LouYou stated:>>>>From what I can tell, all Hodges...Lou<BR/><BR/>You stated:<BR/>>>>><BR/>From what I can tell, all Hodges believes a lost man must do is believe Jesus gives eternal life, and he is born again. The statements are very clear. Some men in the Free Grace camp, who are supportive of what Hodges is teaching, are saying that to require anything more in knowledge or belief beyond the eternal life issue, is an addition to the Gospel that results in salvation. That position runs counter to the Scriptures, particularly 1 Cor. 15:3-4; Romans 10:9-10. <BR/><<<<<BR/><BR/>At the time John 6:47 was written, Christ had died and risen from the dead. Lets say that Zane Hodges overstated his case. What is his case? Is it not that John 6:47 is the Word of God, and that it is powerful enough to accomplish what God wants? Isn't his case also that many (most?) Americans believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, and rose again, but they are going to hell anyway? Isn't his case that the reason most Americans are going to hell is because they do not believe alone in Christ alone for their eternal life. Many believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose from the dead, but they are also trusting in their good works to get them to heaven. In fact, that is the case in about 90% of the folks I witness to. It is not that the death and resurrection is not essential. It is just that belief in it those essential facts of the Gospel does mean a person has eternal life.<BR/><BR/>Keep in mind that in his paper Zane Hodges is presenting a hypothetical situation of the person on the desert island. Maybe it was not the best hypothetical situation. I think that may be the problem. Many joke with him about it.<BR/><BR/>Isn't his case valid that Christ is God and CAN save anyone through belief alone in Him alone for their eternal life through John 6:47? Wouldn't all the "eternal life" verses in John be MISLEADING if this were not true? I think part of Zane's case is the perspecuity of Scripture in John.<BR/><BR/>My Two Cents: I find that most folks in church do not even bring a Bible, let alone read it. I think that this is part of the problem. In my experience, people's view of Scripture is at an all time low.<BR/><BR/>- DonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-66647962503430851942007-07-08T21:57:00.000-05:002007-07-08T21:57:00.000-05:00Lou, I wasn't questioning your "gumption" :-) I ju...Lou, I wasn't questioning your "gumption" :-) I just meant to explain my response to Don.<BR/><BR/>I also agree that Hodges is straightforward about what he believes. I do not think he is purposely deceptive. But outside the articles he wrote on this with the polarizing comments, many people read his writings that reflect his view of the gospel without realizing what he is actually saying. The polarizing comments help to understand exactly what he means when he says, for example, "believe in Jesus for everlasting life". I think we agree that not only should he retract the "polarizing" statements he made, he should agree that it is essential for salvation to believe in the Deity, humanity, substitutionary death, and resurrection of Christ, along with the message of justification by faith alone.<BR/><BR/>-- GregGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-19011791236915598752007-07-08T21:23:00.000-05:002007-07-08T21:23:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-55733115380306217712007-07-08T20:43:00.000-05:002007-07-08T20:43:00.000-05:00Lou, thanks for the reminder about Col. 4:6. I agr...<I>Lou, thanks for the reminder about Col. 4:6. I agree that grace is needed when someone is confused about this or anything else. But I also think some gumption is appropriate when you or Brother Stegall are accused of doing "wrong" for speaking out about this rather than submitting to the magistrate of GES.</I><BR/><BR/>I try to keep a thick skin in these debates. One must be careful not to let the flesh get into these discussions. What Don had to say was pretty minor compared to what some others will say. <BR/><BR/><I>I don't think the solution is for Zane Hodges to remove polarizing statements. It would simply be more deceptive for him to speak in less polarizing language while holding to the same false doctrine. Instead of toning down his language, he should completely change his view.</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe I was not clear. I do not mean for him to remove them, I mean for him to retract them. Much of what some men write is deceptive enough, although I believe Hodges has been pretty straightforward.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I think I have put forth a fair amount of “gumption.”<BR/><BR/>Thanks for coming back, comment any time.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-34755163089618870002007-07-08T18:11:00.000-05:002007-07-08T18:11:00.000-05:00Lou, thanks for the reminder about Col. 4:6. I agr...Lou, thanks for the reminder about Col. 4:6. I agree that grace is needed when someone is confused about this or anything else. But I also think some gumption is appropriate when you or Brother Stegall are accused of doing "wrong" for speaking out about this rather than submitting to the magistrate of GES. I also think this gumption is needed when it is suggested we should all just get along with GES, since they are against Lordship salvation, even if we disagree on what the gospel is. I don't think the solution is for Zane Hodges to remove polarizing statements. It would simply be more deceptive for him to speak in less polarizing language while holding to the same false doctrine. Instead of toning down his language, he should completely change his view. And while it would certainly be in one's liberty to hold a meeting with Hodges and Wilkins about this, they have been teaching this message for years and have become more and more insistent upon it. They aren't just "toying" with this idea or asking for help on it--they are currently settled on it and teaching it.<BR/><BR/>Finally, the claim that this false doctrine has had no practical effect on how GES members present the gospel is simply false. This is an important point highlighted in the two articles. Pastor Stegall's articles point out that presenting the sufficiency of Christ's death for our sins in the gospel "...is something that some Free Grace advocates now consider to be 'adding to the gospel' and something which makes them 'shutter' and feel 'extremely uncomfortable.'" The footnotes on pg. 1, Part 1 reference each of these quotes and I've read them. On page 2, Hodges is quoted "I don't like this way of presenting the gospel invitation" and "I would like to see people abandon this approach to the gospel presentation". It would simply be naive to think such an attitude won't have a practical effect. Page 3 goes on to describe examples of GES books and gospel presentations that completely leave out the death and resurrection and Deity of Christ, e.g. Wilkin's Road to Reward and Secure and Sure. The intro article in the latest Grace Family Journal points out that Hodges new booklet "Did Paul Preach Eternal Life?" which sets out to show the evangelistic message of Paul never--not once--mentions the death of Christ for our sins or the death of Christ in any sense as the ground for our salvation. Imagine the effect this is having on others who follow GES. As gracious as we must be, we also need Paul's gumption toward false doctrine (2Tim. 2:16) when it comes to maintain "unity" in spite of disagreement on what constitutes the gospel message.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-5254852881216233232007-07-08T09:35:00.000-05:002007-07-08T09:35:00.000-05:00Don:This from your opening post in this thread.“It...Don:<BR/><BR/>This from your opening post in this thread.<BR/><BR/><I>“It demonstrates that as Dr. Hodges witnesses every day to folks, he gives them information about who Christ is and what He did on the Cross. He never gives a ‘Crossless Gospel.’”</I><BR/><BR/>Elsewhere I have agreed to (without verifying from Hodges himself) and acknowledged that Hodges will present the death, burial and resurrection of Christ in a witnessing opportunity. I believe he does give “them information about who Christ is…”<BR/><BR/><B><I>“The gospel message about the death, burial, and resurrection is the normal context for our presentation of this core objective. But at the end of the day, anyone who trusts Christ for eternal life is born again.”</I> (JOTGES 14:1, Spring 01, p. 10)</B><BR/><BR/>The term and concern over a “Crossless gospel”: is not over presentation. I’ll give benefit of the doubt that Hodges insists whom Christ is and what He did to secure salvation for mankind is thoroughly presented to a sinner. The controversy is over what Hodges is suggesting must be known, acknowledged and believed by a lost man for him to be born again.<BR/><BR/><B><I>“The simple truth is that Jesus can be believed for eternal salvation apart from any detailed knowledge of what He did to provide it”</I> (JOTGES 14:1, Spring 01, p. 13).</B><BR/><BR/>From what I can tell, all Hodges believes a lost man must do is believe Jesus gives eternal life, and he is born again. The statements are very clear. Some men in the Free Grace camp, who are supportive of what Hodges is teaching, are saying that to require anything more in knowledge or belief beyond the eternal life issue, is an addition to the Gospel that results in salvation. That position runs counter to the Scriptures, particularly <B>1 Cor. 15:3-4; Romans 10:9-10</B>. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, by referring to “additions” to the Gospel, Hodges and/or those aligned with him on this doctrine are inferring that to seek a decision from a lost man for belief in the death of Christ for his sins, and belief Jesus rose from the dead is creating “another gospel” (<B>Gal. 1:8-9</B>). That is a very serious charge, and is probably part of what is fueling the debate.<BR/><BR/>MacArthur would view anything less than full, upfront surrender/commitment to the works of a disciple of Christ is “another gospel.” <BR/><BR/>Now, from the opposite end of the theological pendulum swing we have Hodges who appears to view requiring anything more than believing Jesus gives eternal life is an addition to, or “another gospel.”<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.com