Men Consistently “Saw the Light” of Zane Hodges’s Reasoning, Conclusion

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

I am going to continue Ron Shea’s series by combining Part 4 & 5 into one concluding article.

For Parts 1, 2 & 3 respectively see-

What Turned Zane Hodges to This Profound “Deconstructionist” Error?

The “Deconstructionist” Gospel: Its No Coincidence

Regarding the Crossless Gospel Mantel

Part 4, Regarding Us

As I noted, most men will only receive reproof from one older than they are . . . especially when it is in matters of theology. IMO Bob Wilkin regards few men (if any) as his equal as a theologian. If he begins to return to orthodoxy, whether it be a result of God’s reproof, God’s blessing, God’s conviction of his error and illumination of Scripture, or a man of Dr. Earl Radmacher’s stature confronting Bob for a serious chat, each of us should keep his place in humility.

Imagine if you changed your interpretation of some particular verse (albeit, not as serious an error as the Crossless Gospel), and an immature Christian who had held the proper interpretation before you basically presented himself to the world as your mentor. It would be rather offensive. It would, in fact, almost insure that you remained in his error.

The credit should first and foremost, go to the one who displays the integrity, intellectual honesty and humility to acknowledge his or her error, and return to the truth. The credit should not go to some little narcissist who had been saved six months earlier, but by chance, happened to have arrived at the more orthodox interpretation first.

If Bob Wilkin is ever to return to the clarity on repentance that he expressed in his doctoral thesis, and clarity on the gospel of Christ crucified for the sins of the world, great credit should go to him for the humility and the intellectual honesty it will require of him after painting himself in to one heck-of-an extremist corner. The credit should not go to us. And if we seek to position ourselves as the “savior” of Bob, or MacArthur, or any other such brother, we will be held accountable at the bema for our own massive ego, which only served to anchor our brother in his erroneous doctrine.

Let’s try to keep our own egos out of it, and not make Bob feel he is “acquiescing” to men of inferior intellect and theological ability. Our actions, including our demeanor and attitude, should, first and foremost, be humble. They should be, in every way, geared to restoring him, not glorifying ourselves.

Part 5- A FINAL ADMONITION

We all seek approval and validation. And it is a stark warning to each of us. Each of us is torn by a myriad of emotions. And to us, many of these emotions are invisible and unseen by us . . . because we are in the middle of them. They can taint our view of reality. Whether it is the pain of recognizing that someone we loved is probably in Hell, or the need for validation, or any other emotional motive, Satan stands ready to seduce each of us from the purity of the gospel, one inch at a time.

This Crossless Gospel is not the only heresy we will see in our lifetime. Throughout our lives, each of us will be target by the enemy. And he will seek to sift each of us like wheat in a moment when we are weak. A moment when we deeply need an income to support our family, and a church or teaching job comes available, but at a cost. A moment when our dignity as a theologian has been abased, and we covet the validation of another. A moment when we have been rejected, and covet the love and acceptance of someone we can see and hear and touch.

Stand strong my brethren. The battle is not behind us. It is in front of each of us. And we do not know where the ambush for us has been set.


Ron Shea

Men Consistently “Saw the Light” of Zane’s Reasoning, Part 3

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

We are continuing the series by Brother Ron Shea with this third installment:

REGARDING THE “CROSSLESS” GOSPEL MANTEL

For Part 1 & 2 respectively see-
What Turned Zane Hodges to This Profound “Deconstructionist” Error?

The “Deconstructionist” Gospel: Its No Coincidence

Zane Hodges has gone to be with the Lord. Bob Wilkin is the heir-apparent of the “Crossless” gospel mantel. If Bob were to return to the purity of the gospel, I believe the “Crossless” gospel would evaporate in a matter of a few years.

I believe Bob is in his early to mid fifties. As one ages, one is less likely to receive reproof from one younger than he, and more likely to respond only to an elder. This is human nature for all of us even if we don’t have a serious pride problem. Being in his early 50’s, there are likely very few men left toward whom Bob Wilkin looks up.

Just as significantly, there is a natural pride component that would be true of any of us. Bob Wilkin did not advance this heresy in a poorly thought out footnote consisting of ten words. He has articulated his position with clarity and specificity. He cannot save face by saying,

“That is not what I meant. That was a poor choice of words. Yes, I agree with what you are saying about the content of saving faith.”

It is too late for that. With the paper trail Bob has left behind him, the only way he can say that is to say, “I was wrong.”

These words do not come easily to most men. Far less to a man of intelligence who has labored to advance an errant argument and cannot dismiss his error as a poor choice of words. For example, I try to pray for John MacArthur daily, that he would repent of his error, and proclaim the true gospel. (I confess, I do not pray for him daily, but I do pray for him often.) Yet, I realize that MacArthur is a tough nut to crack. Not because his logic is so compelling. Not because his exegesis is sound. But because he is already on record, and would look ridiculous to many if he jumped ship. Pride is typically the biggest anchor holding a man in false doctrine.

And, for those of us who have known Bob, virtually every person I have ever known has perceived deep spiritual pride in Bob. He sought to make himself the epicenter of free grace… . He did not present himself as a servant to advance the ministry of others, but to get them to serve him to advance his ministry. I can’t recall meeting anyone who knew Bob and did not come away with this perception of him.

When GES was first founded, I received a letter from Bob explaining that the only way it would get off the ground was by co-operation and “networking.” He asked for referrals so that the exposure and circulation of GES would be expanded.  I mailed him the address of EVERY SINGLE PERSON I knew who was a Christian, and many who I hoped might be inclined to hear the truth.

Several years later, after The Gospel Booklet was published, I sent a copy to Bob, and asked if we could mail a copy to every one in the GES, making them aware of it if they wanted to order some for evangelism or discipleship. He wrote me and advised that “GES did not give out their mailing list.” 

I wrote Bob back explaining,

“No, you don’t need to give me the addresses. I would prepare letters and envelopes with a copy of The Gospel Booklet, and ship them to you along with the money necessary to mail all of them. You would not need to give me their addresses.”

I received Bob’s reply, telling me:

1) The members of Grace Evangelical Society would not be interested in it,
2) It was not very well written anyway, and
3) If I wanted to write a good tract, I should contact the American Tract Society and get help with it.

Of course, it is always possible that Bob was sincere in the three comments he wrote to me. That is up to each person to judge for themselves. But I perceived it as a consistent pattern and practice of Bob seeking to make himself the sole epicenter of grace. And this was not the only incident with Bob that served to persuade me of this. And I am not alone in this perception of Bob.

Nevertheless, we have a moment in time, and we should labor in prayer ten hours for every hour we spend on the “front lines” (blogging). Nebuchadnezzar was certainly a prideful man. But after being brought low, eating grass and braying like a donkey for several years, he humbled himself and acknowledged the God of Daniel.

The GES has by all external, observable evidence, lost membership and likewise significant financial support. In my opinion the GES will probably implode within two or three years. “Whom the Lord loveth, He chaseneth,” (Hebrews 12:6).

I have no doubt of God’s love of Bob Wilkin, and no doubt of Bob’s potential service to God if he returns to a biblical view of the gospel.

We should pray, not for God's reproof of Bob, but that He would work in His infinite judgment and knowledge, in the manner best suited to return Bob. This may be to bring Bob low in reproof, and it may be to bless him. (After all, “The goodness of God produces repentance” also!) The method is God’s choice. We should pray for the outcome, not the method.

If Bob returns to the gospel message, I believe the other circles emanating outward, who came under the influence of the Crossless gospel, will begin to do likewise. As I noted, Bob Wilkin is the heir-apparent of Zane’s reductionist theology.

Finally, regarding the Crossless gospel crowd, it is important that someone Bob respects will step up to the plate and confront him as Paul did Peter.

“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed,” (Gal. 2:11).

At Bob’s age, as I said, that pretty well limits the options to those 60 or over. I believe Earl Radmacher could be the man Wilkin might respond to. I recognize that his (Radmacher’s) love of Zane, his respect for Zane, and their longstanding friendship of many years, might have prevented him from taking such action while Zane was alive.

I realize the Free Grace movement has not been limited to the Dallas Theological Society (DTS) crowd. The Florida Bible College, and many of the Independent Fundamental Baptist tradition were at the forefront long before Radmacher or Ryrie stepped into a visible position on the stage.

Nevertheless, the most visible defense of the Free Grace gospel has shifted, in very high proportion, to a handful of DTS graduates. And, more than any other men living today, the mantel “Elder Statesman of the Free Grace Movement” is clearly shared by Earl Radmacher and Charles Ryrie.

Earl Radmacher may be the only living person to whom Bob Wilkin looks up. We must labor in prayer that Earl would be willing to set aside his irenic personality, and sit down with Bob for a serious talk. And if not Earl, that God would raise up someone else whom Bob respects as an equal.

If all of us who love the truth do our part, in prayer, or in confrontation (only when profitable, and only in love), the Crossless gospel movement can become a thing of the past, and the vanguards of this movement can be restored to usefulness in the spread of the gospel.

End Part 3, Please continue to Parts 4 & 5.

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

Brethren:

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

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

Ron Shea: Comment From Pakistan

Dear Guests:

Ron Shea is out of the country. Today, he was able to look in, but only through a dial-up. He asked me to post the following, which I also posted in both threads of his two part series. You may react to the note below in either of the threads or in this. Brother Shea also mentioned that he will participate in the discussion threads upon his return in September.

I am gratified to learn that Zane continues to teach the concept of saving repentance, even if he no longer uses the word in that sense. I am not hung up on words, but the meaning we ascribe to them. And if Zane still teaches a man must renounces all confidence in his dead works to embrace Christ in a saving way, then I have no quarrel with Zane on that level.

I am currently in Pakistan, and have spent yesterday and today going through every verse in Scripture on repentance. (We have a few to go, but are almost done.) Today was dedicated to saving repentance. There were 32 of them. No personal axe to grind. Just taking the most likely interpretation of each verse based on the language and contextual markers. All were over the 50% mark, or I would not have thrown them in that bin. Some were weak, and just barely over 50%, and some were about as clearly dealing with eternal salvation as one could imagine.

I remember one of the free grace arguments is that about 180 times in Scripture, faith is presented as the sole requirement for salvation, and that to refute the free grace position, someone would need to successfully address all of those verses. The same argument is used for unlimited atonement.

Well, the same argument must be considered for saving repentance. 32 verses (ranging from 51% to 99.9%) must be explained in some other fashion.

But, either way, glad to hear that Zane still holds to a clear teaching on the requirement for saving repentance, even if not as related to the word “repent.”


Ron

Drifting Far Off the Marker, Part 2.

This is a continuation of the series by Ron Shea (Th. M.; J.D.). If this is your first view of the series I invite you to read Part 1 of the series and then return to the second and final installment.

From my seminary days I can still recall Hodges’ vivid illustration in his class on Hebrews . . . “How shall we escape if we neglect . . . if we . . . DRIFT AWAY!” Zane’s imagery was stark. Passing a buoy on the ocean, there is no perception of movement, as on a river. The ocean is a uniform body with no apparent relative motion. But ignore the buoy for 20 minutes, and look back for it, and you find that you have drifted far of your marker. The message was that it can happen to any of us. 

I was so overwhelmed by his imagery; I have always prayed that after running the race, I would not be disqualified.

Little was I to imagine it was my beloved instructor who was drifting, and who, for his own reasons, never looked back over his shoulder to see where the buoy was. And when he was finally told that the buoy was three miles northwest, he no longer saw it as a marker near a parcel of solid ground. It was only a milestone of progress, as Zane advanced in his wobbly way toward some strange new doctrine. It was the Christ of Jackson Pollack and Salvador Dali. The “upper story” Christ described by Francis Schaffer. It was a Jesus that could be filled with emotions or doctrine, or any other baggage one sought to bring to it. An inflatable rubber man. Stuff him with what you will. Make his ears big, or is feet long. Stuff him with hay, or fill him with air. As long as the nametag says “Jesus,” it’s all the same. 

Were this the only error, it would be a tragedy. But suddenly, not only the cross of Christ is miles behind us in the rear view window, so is grace.


To appreciate how this came about, it is important to reconstruct Hodges on the concept of Repentance.

Grace, my friend, is not the SUGGESTION that eternal life be offered freely and received freely. It is the demand. If it is not received freely, it is not grace. The promise is made void. And throughout Scripture, in many different forms, the word "Repent" demands of those who believe in salvation by works . . . who believe in salvation by self righteousness . . . that they must change their mind. They must come to regard their works as incapable of earning, or even contributing to their eternal life. Grace is not the preferred route to justification and eternal life, it is the only way. “For if it is by grace, than is it no more of works.”

Man is not the co-savior of his eternal soul. If Christ, and Christ alone, is not one’s Savior, one has no Savior. Although faith makes an affirmative statement of man’s response, it is repentance that proclaims that faith in Christ, may not be sullied with the prideful addition of man’s works. Salvation is not an amalgamation of Christ plus works. It is through Christ alone. Repentance teaches us that the message of grace is not a suggestion. It is a demand.

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.

However, an impartial estimate would identify 36 separate occasions in which repentance is presented as a requirement, or cause of eternal salvation. Matthew 3:2; Matthew 3:8; 3:11; 9:13, 11:20; 11:21; 21:19; 21:32; Mark 1:4, 1:15; 2:17; 6:12; Luke 3:3; 3:8; 5:32; 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7; 16:30; 24:7; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 11:18; 13:24; 17:30; 19:4; 20:21; 26:20 (2x); Romans 2:4; Hebrews 6:1; 2 Peter 3:9. These passages are identified with no theological agenda other than the most likely meaning suggested (or demanded) by the context.

For Hodges position to be sustainable, he must be able to demonstrate by the preponderance of the evidence that NONE of these passages are directed to the question of eternal salvation. Five verses would require exegetical gymnastics. Thirty six requires an exegetical contortionist. And it clearly requires an agenda . . . reaching the conclusion, and then hammering the Scriptures to fit that conclusion.

The argument that John never speaks of “repentance” is akin to the argument that the rapture is not a biblical doctrine because the word “rapture” is not in the Bible. That is indeed true. But the question is more accurately “is the doctrine of the rapture taught in the Bible?” I have found, in my experience with the one-verse Willies of this world, that this question does not cut any ice. So now, I simply ask, “well how would you translate ‘deharpadzo’?” (“deharpadzo” in 1 Thess. 4:17 is translated “caught up” but could equally be translated “rapture.” They mean the same thing.)

The word “Jesus” has been lofted into the existentialists’ upper story where it has been reduced to whatever meaningless appellation the subjective observer would ascribe to it. In quite the opposite fashion, the word repentance has been hammered into a preconceived mold and nailed in place. It is no longer the concepts that matter, but hollow words devoid of content.

The repentance of Zane Hodges is essentially the same meaning as used in Reformed circles . . . repentance is a turning from sin. Hodges escapes from any taint of Lordship Salvation by claiming that the word “repent” is never used as a requirement for salvation, a dubious claim at best.

But more to the point, grace is not a suggestion that man may accept eternal life as a gift. Grace is the only way that man can be saved.

The synchertists must repent of dead works. They must renounce salvation through religion, ritualism, sacerdotalism, morality, and personal reformation. They must renounce all of these good and worthy things has having any contribution in their salvation. They must accept the gift as a gift. 

Adding Jesus to a long list of things one must do or be to attain eternal life is NOT the saving faith. And there is a word in Scripture that is frequently used to demand that faith in Christ is not saving faith unless it is faith in Christ Alone. And that word is REPENT.

In the 20th century, Free Grace theologians have systematically identified doctrines incompatible with the doctrine of Grace, salvation by water baptism, salvation by morality, salvation by religion, etc. The motivation of these many works was one thing and one thing only: To preserve the doctrine of grace from the pollution of man's self righteousness.

But what would Hodges now say to one who trusted in Christ plus baptism? Who trusted that, together with Jesus, the fact that they had been a virgin until their wedding night was the basis on which they had gained God’s acceptance. The person who believes their sins are washes away in sacerdotal acts of penance, nine first-Fridays, etc. What answer does Hodges have for such men? They are no longer required to repent of these works, because that is not the meaning of repentance in Hodges new system.

And so we ask again: If someone believes in Jesus, but also believes other things are necessary for eternal salvation, what must he do? In historic Free Grace circles, the “promise is made void,” (Romans 4:14, “grace is no more grace” (Romans 11:6-7), and “Christ is become of none effect unto you who would be justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace.” (Gal. 5:1-4)

If Hodges makes an affirmative demand that such person renounce faith in their works, Hodges is teaching repentance whether or not he uses the word.

However, if Hodges no affirmative demand on such a person other than “to believe on Jesus” (a fact which the example has already stipulated), than grace is no longer the only way, but the preferred way of salvation.

And the man who would have been the elder statesman of the free-grace movement no longer sees the defense of Grace as critical, but only preferable. He is become a post-modernist deconstructionist movements of the 20th century. An heir to the linguistic absurdities of Witgenstein, who wrote many books and used many words to prove that words are too ambiguous to mean anything.

In my Gospel Booklet I have listed four elements as essentials to a saving profession of faith in Christ. They are:

1) The Deity of Christ,
2) The atoning work of Christ,
3) The Resurrection of Christ, and
4) The offer of salvation EXCLUSIVELY through grace

None are left standing in the gospel of Zane Hodges. It is as if, after a life time of defending these doctrines, he forgot why he had mounted his steed for battle. After many years, he jousted with windmills with great skill and aplomb, but when called to defend his King, he was last seen on his mount 100 miles North West of the castle, riding after some imaginary grail.

“Professor Hodges, If someone is trusting in Christ plus works do they need to repent of their works?”

Hodges: “It is not by Faith plus repentance, it is faith alone.”


“Well, Professor Hodges, what is repentance?” 


Hodges: “Why it’s turning from your wicked ways!”



Do you start to see you are arguing in a circle? And you will never make a whit of progress. But do you also see that if a man need no longer repent of his dead works to be saved, then the head of the Free Grace movement is no longer teaching grace! With Hodges you can come as you are! Ten Commandments, circumcision, nine consecutive first Fridays, etc. As long as you have Jesus, the rest is OK. 

Is this a defense of grace? Is this a defense of faith alone? It is universalism. It is existentialism. It is deconstructionism. Jesus is whatever you want Him to be. And faith can be in Jesus and anything else you chose to believe in.

Just make sure that none of you, FOR EVEN ONE SECOND, EVER CONCEDE EVEN FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT THE MEN 9 IN THE GES) WHO FOLLOW AFTER THE TEACHING OF HODGES ARE ANOTHER MOVEMENT WTIHIN THE FREE GRACE CAMP.

THEY ARE HERETICS, NOT COUSINS. AND THE DAY WE CEDE THE BATTLE, AND ACKNOWLEDGE THEM AS A VALID BRANCH OF THE FREE GRACE MOVEMENT, WE HAVE CAST OUR LOT IN WITH THE HERETICS, AND PLACE OURSELVES UNDER PAUL’S CURSE IN GALATIANS. 


Their view is not another flavor. Their view is not an alternative interpretation. Hodges and the GES are not in mild error between the division of labors of elders and deacons. They have abandoned the faith by clever arguments. And they are heretics. Stand Firm my friends! 

In 1957, Alec Guinness and William Holden starred in The Bridge on the River Kwai, winner of 7 academy awards. Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guiness) became so obsessed with demonstrating the dignity and virtue of a British Soldier that he not only cooperated in building a bridge for the Japanese, a strategic bridge that would transport military supplies, but, upon learning that his fellow prisoners of war had booby trapped the bridge to blow when the first train went over it, labored with his Japanese captors to uncover the electrical lines connected to the charging caps.

As the Japanese train began to cross the bridge, a moment of clarity came across Guinness. He realize in trying to demonstrate the character and integrity of the British Soldier, he had lost sight of the greater goal, to prevail in war over our enemies. In an act of redemption, Guinness falls on the detonating charger, blowing up the bridge as he is shot to death by the Japanese prison guards who trusted him.

Each of us has the capacity to lose sight of the big picture and, incrementally get turned around in the fog of battle until we are in fact serving the enemy. This is why Paul commanded is to “walk circumspectly, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.”

Let us pray for the restoration of our brothers. Let us pray that self righteousness never becomes part of the controversy. This would erect a barrier that would abase their personal dignity and prevent their return. And let us pray that we are never caught in the deception of the wicked one, turned about in the confusion of battle until we find our labors advancing the cause of the enemy.




Ron Shea

Drifting Far Off The Marker, Part 1

Dear Guests: 

A blog visitor, who has gone by the handle of “Elijah,” occasionally posts at my and other blogs. *Recently Elijah posted a comment under my article Is “REDEFINED” Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?


I asked “Elijah” if he would consider expanding that thread comment into an article that I could post as a series of lead articles at In Defense of the Gospel. I also asked him if he would be willing to sign off using his real identity, to which he agreed. Our “Elijah” is Ron Shea (Th. M; J.D.) of Clear Gospel Campaign.

Some guests may remember the Summer of 2007 when Bob Wilkin of the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) was calling for an open, public debate on the GES’s Crossless gospel. In September 2007 Ron Shea accepted the challenge and publicly offered to meet Bob for the debate at any venue of Wilkins’s choosing. In a strange twist, within 72 hours, Wilkin suddenly lost his appetite for a debate on the Gospel. (You can read the report of those events at Open Challenge) LINK

“Elijah” opened his thread comment to my “REDEFINED Free Grace theology article with, “Amen, Amen, and Amen.” What follows is his revised and expanded version of his thread comment that followed.



Estimates holds anywhere from 2% to 6% of Germany were Nazis. It is an insult to a German to call them Nazis, as it is to blame whites for slavery, when the abolition movement was largely a white movement. 

Most of the major cults of the world, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventist, Christian Science, and etc. came out of America. Does that mean that they are one of the many forms of American Protestantism? They are cults! I will not sully the German people with the barbarianism of a few. I will not saddle white people with the sins of slavery, nor American Protestants with being another branch of Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

Unless it can be shown that there is something in German nationalism that inexorably leads to Nazism, it is wrong to allege that Nazism is “one of many branches” of German nationalism. Unless it can be shown that white people are inherently racist against black people, it is an insult to place American slavery on the shoulders of the entire white race.

Unless it can be shown that American Protestantism leads inexorably to heresy, it is an insult to Protestantism to allege that Jehovah’s Witnesses are a branch of American Protestantism. A cult is a cult, and an “ism” is an “ism.” When they abandon their moorings, they have no right to claim that they are an ambassador of their hometown unless it can be demonstrated that the path they have tread was a paved road leading out of their hometown. When the path leads through rivers and streams, over fences, under barbed wire, and swinging from branch to branch without ever touching the ground, their claim as citizens of their hometown is dubious. Their claim to ambassadorship is absurd.

More to the point, unless there can be shown to be some thread within that theology or culture that inexorably leads down the path that the Grace Evangelical Society has taken, it is not only wrong, it is an insult, and it is an ad-hominem argument to lump all free-grace people in with the neo-existentialism of the Hodges-Wilkin model. The fact is, the Crossless gospel of Wilkin and Hodges is nothing more than the theological voice of the “empty Jesus” of the “seeker friendly” and “emerging church” movements. 

The GES is not a BRANCH of the Free Grace movement any more than those who taught license were a branch of Paul’s Free Grace movement.

 Moreover, as long as we are on the subject, let’s question whether Zane Hodges can be seriously consider Free Grace any longer. Before you laugh, or assume I am only being incendiary, consider this: The Free Grace movement was born as it progressively defended the doctrine of grace against one work after another. 

In 1923 in The Expositor, Greek Grammarian Julius Mantey proposed a “causal” nuance of the preposition “eis” as a good interpretation for Acts 2:38, “Repent, and be baptized EIS (because of) the forgiveness of sins.” Whether Mantey was right, wrong, or sort-of right, the motivation for advancing this argument was a defense of the doctrine of GRACE. Quite simply, “if it be of works, then it is no more grace.” (Romans 11:6-7)

 Within a quarter century, Mantey’s understanding of the Greek proposition “eis” boiled over into a series of debates in the Journal of Biblical Literature with Ralph Marcus, professor of Classical Greek at University of Chicago, and editor of the Loeb Classical Library. Marcus may have gotten the better of Mantey in the day, but this was largely owing to the terms of the debate into which Mantey was suckered, which were virtually indefensible.


The Church of Christ ambled on its wobbly way, proclaiming water baptism a requisite for eternal salvation, and the Pentecostals raised their confused voices denouncing the Eternal Security of the believer. The questions of “Lordship” and “perseverance” had been on the back burner between Baptists and Presbyterians for a long time, and may have well stayed there if denominational lines hadn’t begun to fall, making the church a true market place for ideas. 

In the 70’s, the Lordship Salvation question took center stage. Florida Bible College (FBC) was at the forefront in defense of the doctrine of grace, with Richard Seymour’s work “All About Repentance” becoming a seminal defense of the doctrine of grace. Though not uniformly “Free Grace,” but with several able thinkers fully in the free-grace camp, Dallas Theological Seminary stood far off, lobbing shells in to protect the storming advances of the FBC boys. Charles Ryrie joined his voice with Seymour, proclaiming that no promise or commitment was required for eternal life.


The questions of water baptism, eternal security, and Lordship Salvation were well under control in the Free Grace camp. And most significantly, the terms of the debate had been framed. Even though not every Free Grace believer might agree on an interpretation of a particular verse, they uniformly agreed that neither water baptism nor “repentance from sin” were necessary for salvation, nor did one need to live up to some arbitrary standard of holiness to “stay saved.” The terms of the debate were clear. And the significance of each of these doctrines was appreciated in the Free Grace movement.

The question of assurance was a much more sticky wicket. Many Baptists professed to believe in eternal security rather than perseverance, proclaiming “It’s not we who persevere, but God who preserves.” But when confronted with problem verses like James 2, some would adopt a perseverance view, not even realizing that they had denied the doctrine of assurance.

There had been some historic voices calling in the wilderness who grasped the subtlety of this question, such as C.H. McIntosh and Morrow. But the Free Grace community at large had never fully grasped that perseverance and assurance were mutually exclusive. Nor had the free-grace movement at large grasped that ultimately, to embrace the doctrine of perseverance was to embrace justification by works through a rubber glove filled with holes.

Zane Hodges, standing on the shoulders of Morrow, C.H. McIntosh, and other greats, found the torch handed to him as the heir apparent of the Free Grace mantle. The fourth (and seemingly only major battle remaining) was his (Zane Hodges) to articulate. More than anyone else, Hodges was able to articulate why perseverance was a denial of the doctrine of grace, and to provide rational and coherent answers to some vexing questions raised in Scripture. Today, Hodges would unquestionably be the elder statesman of the movement, had he not apostatized.

Please continue with Part Two of Drifting Far Off The Marker.