Grace Conference Update: Day 1

Greetings:

It is late, and I have to be up early for Day 2 of the conference. More detail to follow, but for now...

I have thoroughly enjoyed the conference thus far. For the first time I met Dr. Robert Lightner and Dr. Charlie Bing. Dr. Ryrie’s flight was canceled so he will be at the conference on Friday. I quote each of these men liberally in my book. Each has made valuable contributions to the refutation of Lordship theology.

I asked Dr. Lightner to sign my copy of Sin, the Savior and Salvation. He did so, and I really appreciated it. He brought the opening keynote sermon, and it as on the Lordship of Christ. I intend to post key elements of this fine sermon.

It was quite humorous how I met Dr. Bing. I was in the first five minutes of my workshop and I was showing some of the books both for and against Lordship Salvation. So, I showed some of MacArthur’s Lordship books, then I showed Ryrie’s So Great Salvation and Lightner’s Sin, the Savior & Salvation.

Then I lifted Dr. Bing’s dissertation, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation & Response. I was remarking on my appreciation for his book and how it helped me get off the ground in 1997 while I was in South Africa. All of a sudden I notice a member of the audience to my left getting my attention and pointing to his left, my right.

So, I look in that direction, and sitting right in front of me, two rows back, is Dr. Bing. My jaw dropped! I think I did a Ralph Cramdon (Jackie Gleason: Honeymooners) “hamana, hamana, hamana.”

Dr. Bing and I have corresponded via e-mail for 10 years and spoke on the phone once. I had no idea he was coming to the conference. I greeted, and recognized him for the audience. It took me several minutes to recover and get back on track. He and I were able to visit later.

Incidentally, I also met and spent a good deal of time with Pastor Dennis Rokser and Pastor Tom Stegall. At the conference there has been some unofficial discussion of Hodge’s “Crossless” gospel making the rounds. Several men asked me about it having read some of the details here at my blog and having read Brother Stegall’s first two articles in his series.

More to follow…


LM

Wrapping the Series on Zane Hodges

To All:

Zane Hodges is a major figure in the Lordship Salvation debate. Hodges is probably as prominent and well known a figure in the debate from the Free Grace perspective as John MacArthur is for the Lordship Salvation perspective.

In this series it has not been my desire to take anything away from the helpful contributions Zane Hodges has made to the Lordship debate. There are, however, serious concerns I have with some of the polarizing statements he has made in various books and publications, such as the kind I have noted earlier and will reiterate and expand on below.

When the Lordship Salvation controversy broke out following the release of John MacArthur’s The Gospel According to Jesus (1988) the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) was formed. Zane Hodges, Mike Cocoris, and to a lesser extent Dr. Charles Ryrie responded to the Lordship position. Dr. Ryrie’s book So Great Salvation is among the most reliable answers to the Lordship interpretation of the gospel from that period, and I cite it a number of times in the pages of my book.

Hodges rightly identifies reformed theology as the root of Lordship Salvation. There is, however, a serious problem in that Hodges eliminates repentance from the conversion experience. In his book Harmony With God Hodges takes the position that the process of repentance may be a preparatory step in coming to salvation, and should be evident in the life of a believer, but a lost man can be born again without repentance. Hodges also said he no longer holds to the “change of mind” view of repentance. For example:

“Many very fine grace people have held that the view the apostle John, at least in his Gospel, regarded repentance as a 'change of mind' that turned one from unbelief to faith in Christ. However, it is impossible to find such a doctrine of repentance anywhere in John’s writings.” (Harmony With God, p. 21)

“Thank God there is only one answer to the question, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ That, of course, is the answer not only of Paul and all the apostles, but of Jesus Himself. The answer is: ‘believe!’ Repentance is not part of that answer. It never has been and never will be.” (Harmony With God, p. 123.)

Another area for concern is that while Hodges believes the death (cross) burial and resurrection should be part of a gospel message, he also teaches it is not necessary for lost men to believe Jesus died for their sins in order to be born again. The core objective of Hodges’ gospel is for the sinner to believe Jesus grants eternal life, and this alone results in salvation from sin, death and Hell. According to Hodges, all a sinner needs to do is trust Christ for eternal life and he is born again. This teaching is found in an article by Hodges available through the GES website titled, How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1 & 2 (see links below). For example Hodges states,

“People are not saved by believing that Jesus died on the cross; they are saved by believing in Jesus for eternal life . . . Let us always point men to Christ Himself as the object of faith, rather than to some concept that must be theologically clarified before it can really be understood…. You see, as we noted previously, the facts surrounding the gospel message–such as the death and resurrection of Christ-are important facts for what they tell us about the reasons for trusting Christ. But believing these facts doesn’t save anyone. People are only saved when they believe that Jesus gives them eternal life the moment they believe in Him for that. The simple truth is that Jesus can be believed for eternal salvation apart from any detailed knowledge of what He did to provide it.” (Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 14:1, Spring 2001.)

This teaching of a cross-less gospel by Hodges made a number of men in the GES very uncomfortable. A response was written by Pastor Gregory P. Sapaugh and appears in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, A Response to Hodges: How To Lead A Person To Christ, Parts 1 and 2..

This passage is arguably the clearest definition of what constitutes the gospel of Jesus Christ. “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures,” (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

In the thread under The Teaching of Zane Hodges I am interacting with Antonio da Rosa. Antonio is passionately committed to Free Grace theology especially as it is presented by Zane Hodges.

Antonio wrote:

“Yes, I believe that a man can be born again who has not come to an understanding that Jesus died (was crucified) to pay the penalty for their sin.”

My reply is:

In that case you have a problem with Romans 10:9-10, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”

You are teaching a "cross-less" gospel message. You believe and preach the cross, but find it not at all necessary for a lost man to believe this in order to be saved. Based on Roman 10:9 I have to conclude this is wrong!

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 defines the gospel. Romans 10:9-10 states believing these facts (defined in 1 Cor. 15:3-4) are conditional to be born again. Presenting these facts is essential, but to render them unimportant for the sinner to acknowledge and believe undermines the gospel.

I want to encourage you to read Dr. Kevin Bauder’s article at Sharper Iron titled, Thinking About the Gospel, Part 1. In the article Dr. Bauder addresses 1 Cor. 15:3-4 in a compelling way.

Zane Hodges takes what some, even in the GES camp, view as an extreme view of the Free Grace position. Hodges advocates that position, which insists a person, can profess Christ, but demonstrate absolutely no evidence of a new life in Christ, and still be counted as among those who are truly saved. His books, which present this position, are The Bible Knowledge Commentary, The Hungry Inherit, The Gospel Under Siege, Grace in Eclipse, and The Epistles of John, pp. 111-112,145.

Recently I discovered a paper titled, Sanctification Confused: Understanding the Controversy Being Created by the Free Grace Movement by Mr. Lenny Demers. The article cites Hodges from numerous sources that substantiate much of what I have been sharing of late in regard to the teaching of Zane Hodges.

[In the opening page of Brother Demer's article you will notice he refers to Dr. Charles Baker. Dr. Baker has made some very good contributions to the Lordship debate and I cite him in my book.]

Many have appreciated some of the helpful contributions Zane Hodges has made to the Lordship debate. There are, however, some polarizing statements and positions by Hodges, such as the kind I have noted above, that leave many disappointed and frustrated.

Hodges is very close to the heart of the Lordship debate, and I am not as comfortable with him as I'd like to be on several key points of doctrine. Because of the concerns I had and continue to have with Zane Hodges I decided it would be in the best interest of accomplishing my goals for In Defense of the Gospel to make only a brief mention of Hodges, with a caution to my readers about the direction the he has taken on certain key elements of the gospel.

I would like encourage good people on both side of the Lordship/Free Grace controversy to feel free to post some comments here on this short series on the teaching of Zane Hodges. I would be especially interested to hear from those of you in the Lordship camp. Or if you prefer, please write me via e-mail. Just click on the e-mail icon, which appears just above the Links section.

God bless you,


LM

For additional reading on doctrinal concerns with Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillow, Bob Wilkin of the Grace Evangelical Society please visit George Zeller’s site.


For additional reading on the theology of Zane Hodges choose from the following links.
How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1:
The Content of Our Message

How to Lead People to Christ, Part 2:
Our Invitation to Respond

Harmony With God, Part 1

Harmony With God, Part 2

Harmony With God, Part 3

Why I Did Not Cite Zane Hodges

To All:

Following is a continuation of what was not at first intend to be, but has become a short series.

In 1997, while I was VP of the Calvary Baptist Theological College in South Africa, I was asked to write an official position paper for the College. The purpose for the paper was to set down the college position in regard to the interpretation of the gospel commonly known as Lordship Salvation (LS). Lordship Salvation had been introduced by two American missionaries into the Bible College while the president was on furlough and I had not yet arrived. This situation lead to the decision to produce an official statement on the Lordship issue.

When I began to read and study in earnest for the college position paper I had no problem finding books by John MacArthur, for example, representing the Lordship gospel, but resources that answered LS were not plentiful. Many that I did find were somewhat helpful, but not comprehensive, some were not balanced. Eventually I did receive a copy of Dr. Charles Ryrie’s So Great Salvation. Later I was directed to Dr. Charles Bing. I shared with him my interest in the Lordship debate, and he sent me a copy of his dissertation Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response. Bing’s and Ryrie’s books were, and remain very helpful resources. Through an internet search, I located the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) and consequently Zane Hodges.

The GES and Zane Hodges have made some helpful contributions to the Lordship debate. In my reading, however, I discovered several doctrinal issues that left me very concerned. As I continued to read Hodges it became increasingly clear that I was having more than just minor disagreements with what I was reading by him in the Lordship debate.

My concern with some of Hodges' doctrinal positions rose to a level where I decided it would not be in the best interest of my work on the Lordship controversy to include him as a source. I felt if I were to use Hodges as a source I would have to include a strong disclaimer and/or warning. Furthermore, I felt citing Hodges without expressing the concerns and reservations I had with him could give the impression that I might be in agreement with certain elements of his doctrine that clearly I was not then, and am not now. This is especially true in regard to his position on repentance as he defines it in Harmony With God.

The over-riding motive for my producing In Defense of the Gospel was to address Lordship’s corruption of the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3). Hodges, in my opinion, takes a polar-extreme position in his answer to Lordship Salvation. Citing Hodges in my book had great potential for becoming a lightning rod, and a distraction from the main objective of my book, which was to explain, expose and refute Lordship Salvation.

A “distraction” is exactly what developed over my very brief mention of Dave Hunt's What Love is This: Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God. The mere mention of Hunt's book exposed a raw nerve with men who are Calvinistic in their theology. Over time I was able to deal with, and get everyone past that issue. It was a brief and unfortunate distraction from the discussion of Lordship theology. [The brief mention of Hunt's book has been deleted from the upcoming revised edition of my book.]

It is not my desire to take anything away from the positive contributions Hodges has made to the Lordship debate and in other areas. There are, however, serious concerns I have with some of the polarizing statements he has made in various books and publications. Today, I am especially troubled with what I am reading by Hodges on repentance. I am also very concerned with the comments I noted from Hodges on presenting the gospel invitation. See The Teaching of Zane Hodges.

Hodges is very close to the heart of the Lordship debate, and I am not as comfortable with him as I'd like to be on several key points of doctrine. Because of this I decided it would be in the best interest of accomplishing my goals for the book to make only a brief mention of Hodges, with a caution to my readers.

Later in the week I will post an article to very briefly review how Hodges defines repentance in the context of conversion.


LM