The Hypocrisy of the Director of the Free Grace Alliance

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Free Gracer, Jun 21, 2008.

  1. Free Gracer

    Free Gracer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Recently, Dr. J.B. Hixson, director of the Free Grace Alliance (FGA), published a book on the gospel which contains inaccurate statements concerning consistent Free Grace theology. The material includes misrepresentations, falsehoods, and misquotes.

    I spoke recently to Dr. Earl Radmacher at length a few weeks ago about the state of affairs in the Free Grace movement. In the course of our discussion, Earl told me that he was asked to write the foreword to Dr. Hixson's book, and, he added, that he was ambivalent to do so. Since we were discussing issues concerning Free Grace theology, he stated quite confidently and certainly that Dr. Hixson's book did not mention whatsoever the current controversy that has been instigated by a very small, yet vocal, sectarian branch of FG theology. In spite of his hesitancy to write the foreword, he did so.

    Dr. Earl Radmacher was the Founding President of the FGA. During our discussion, he mentioned that when the antagonists from Duluth started publishing their offensive articles that he wrote them to object to several things. In addition to criticizing their misrepresentations of consistent Free Grace theology, he stated that he does not believe that Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, or the Grace Evangelical Society preaches a false gospel at all!

    The following is taken from Dr. Radmacher's book, Salvation:

    Exegetically I am indebted to the exegetical expertise and hermeneutical care of Zane Hodges, whose humility before the Word of God and untiring diligence continues to be a model for me of "a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). There have been times when I questioned his conclusions, but further investigation usually demonstrated his superior wisdom.​
    These are high praises of Zane Hodges by Dr. Earl Radmacher! Earl expresses his indebtedness to Zane for his "exegetical expertise and hermeneutical care". Zane is characterized by Earl as one who "rightly divid[es] the word of truth" and one whose "humility before the Word of God" is a model for him.

    In the text of his book, Earl reserves over half of a written page, 22 sentences, for a block of text written by Zane Hodges. The exact content of this excerpt is Zane's explanation of saving faith, particularly what it means to soteriologically believe that Jesus is the Christ. The interesting thing is that the premise of Zane's argument found in the text that Dr. Radmacher chose to use is the point of contention for those sectarians who have hoisted division upon the Free Grace world.

    In the text of the book authored by J.B. Hixson, director of the FGA, J.B. makes disparaging comments about Zane Hodges. He even goes so far as to state that Zane Hodges preaches a false gospel!

    If Dr. Earl Radmacher knew that such material would be included in J.B.'s book he would never have written the Foreword to it!

    Just two weeks ago I spoke to Dr. Radmacher concerning issues facing Free Grace theology, and just two weeks ago he was unaware that such material was in J.B. Hixson's book on the gospel that he wrote the foreword to! Dr. Radmacher stated that no talk of objections to the consistent Free Grace theology of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, and the GES was in J.B.'s book!

    But lo! The book is now published, containing endorsements by Tom Stegall and Dennis Rokser, the two of the instigators in the destruction of FG theology. Additional content has been added that Dr. Radmacher was unaware of, material that disparages his biblical model of Scriptural precision and care, Zane Hodges, going so far as to state that Zane preaches a false gospel!

    I called Dr. J.B. Hixson today on the phone. I told him that I had a discussion with Dr. Radmacher and that Earl was quite certain that J.B.'s book did not contain a whit of objection to Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, or the GES. I therefore asked him if the manuscript that was given to Earl to read before he wrote the foreword contained the material which accuses Zane Hodges of preaching a false gospel. He bluntly told me that it was none of my business!

    Dr. Radmacher would have never endorsed a book that contained material condemning his friend and mentor, Zane Hodges. Obviously, Dr. J.B. Hixson knew this! The only logical explanation that can be inferred by this information is that Dr. J.B. Hixson, director of the FGA, purposely kept Earl in the dark concerning this material!

    Why would J.B. Hixson wish to have Dr. Radmacher endorse and write the forward to his book? Why has there been such a great attempt on his part to get Earl to speak at FGA functions now? It is obvious that Dr. J.B. Hixson is trying to consolidate a strong anti-GES Free Grace party in the FGA by showcasing Dr. Radmacher, a long time advocate and beloved patriarch of Free Grace theology (yet whose position closely parallels Zane Hodges and the GES!) to the Free Grace public. Thus by close association, it appears to the public, ipso facto, that Dr. Radmacher sides with the Duluthian faction, which in fact, he is opposed to!

    If in fact Dr. J.B. Hixson has purposely kept Earl in the dark concerning material that he knew Dr. Radmacher would find offensive (and would thus keep Earl from endorsing his book and writing the foreword) he is guilty of a gross deception! In this, and in email correspondences that I have had with him, and in phone conversations, I have not found Dr. J.B. Hixson to be of sufficient maturity and discernment to be director of the FGA. It is because of this that he will receive my vote of No Confidence.

    If in fact this was a deliberate deception on Dr. J.B. Hixson’s part, he should step down from the leadership of the FGA. Such behavior is not commensurate with the responsibilities and spiritual duties of leadership necessary for a director of the FGA.

    In the frequently asked questions (faq) section of the FGA we find this in answer to the question, “How is the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) different from other organizations?”:

    The FGA is seeking to unite leaders, churches, and organizations which affirm the gospel of grace. ... We at FGA want to CONNECT, ENCOURAGE and EQUIP free grace leaders, churches, and organizations...to STRATEGIZE TOGETHER about how to unite and promote grace to our needy world.​
    As the director of the FGA, Dr. J.B. Hixson is mandated to “connect, [and] encourage” free grace people, and to “strategize together how to unite”. He is sorely lacking in these principles. On the contrary, he is using the directorship of the FGA to divide Free Grace theology asunder, and in the process, is making a public spectacle and mockery of it!

    Dr. J.B. Hixson: What are your strategies for uniting the Free Grace Theology camp? Let me tell you something, J.B., condemning and anathematizing your Free Grace brothers who preach the substitutionary death and bodily resurrection of Christ and faith alone in Christ alone apart from works is not the way to inspire unity!

    No longer are many who would consider themselves Free Grace advocates speaking against Lordship Salvation. No! They rather are devouring other Free Grace people! It is sad and deplorable! Free Grace brothers are not our enemies! The enemy is Lordship Salvation in its many guises!

    Zane Hodges is a biblical scholar par excellence. He has remained unmarried, devoting himself to the interpretation of the Word. His accomplishments are many! But the lack of respect and appreciation for this man, who taught at Dallas Theological Seminary for 27 years, co-edited a version of the Majority Text, wrote nearly a dozen very helpful and exegetically sound Free Grace books, many journal articles, and devoted a large part of his life to expose the dangerous teachings of Lordship Salvation, is appalling and disturbing!

    Free Grace theology shares a rich history and theological heritage. All of us preach Christ and him crucified as the only basis for eternal life. All of us preach that Christ was raised for our justification. All of us preach faith in Jesus Christ as the sole condition for eternal life. Dr. J.B. Hixson does not seem to grasp this, for if he did, he could begin constructing roads rather than burning bridges. If he did, he would be facilitating strategizing sessions on how to unite rather than publicly denouncing fellow Free Grace advocates.

    The FG public deserves to know if the Director of the FGA is guilty of deception. The whole controversy can be quelled if Dr. J.B. Hixson will come out and say that the manuscript that he gave Dr. Radmacher contained the disputed material and that somehow Earl missed that section.

    It is publicly known that Dr. Radmacher does not believe that Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, or the GES preaches a false gospel. As a matter of fact, Earl holds Zane in the highest of esteem, calling him a “model” for him, and his soteriology closely parallels Zane’s! It is a fact that Earl was certain that no such material was in J.B.’s book just two weeks ago. It is a fact that if Earl would have known that Zane was so disparaged, and condemned as preaching a false gospel, that he would have never written a foreword to J.B.’s book. It is a fact that J.B. purposely included that material unbeknownst to Earl.

    We must have confidence in our leaders. J.B.’s acts of divisiveness, un-fair representation of other Free Grace brothers, deception (as found in our email conversation) and potential scandal as identified in this post, does not inspire a whit of confidence in his leadership.
     
  2. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    What exactly does the Hodges group teach about eternal salvation and grace, if you please ? No links. I would request you write down in plain words what exactly is it that has caused others to characterize your friends or your groups as preachers and propagators of a "crossless gospel".

    I for one would like to understand.
     
  3. Maestroh

    Maestroh
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are You Hodges' PR Agent?

    If it includes all of those, sir, I think you do a disservice to the rest of us by failing to name even one.

    Would you please do so?

    One man's bad reputation is another man's good. And one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
    OK. This would have NOTHING to do with Radmacher being at DTS at the same time as those two now, would it?

    So Earl has a high opinion of Zane's exegesis? That same opinion is NOT shared by many DTS faculty who worked with Hodges and who like him. One need only read Wallace's "Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics" in James 2:14-26 or S.Lewis Johnson Jr's response to the lordship controversy in "Christianity Today" in 1989 to see that Hodges is not universally recognized as a great exegete. Even so...

    Well hasn't Zane Hodges made this same claim against others?
     
  4. Maestroh

    Maestroh
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    RE: Part 2

    Well maybe none of us should be surprised.

    After all - since salvation does NOT necessarily result in works, why should ANY of us be surprised when the 'sanctification optional' folks don't have any?
     
  5. Free Gracer

    Free Gracer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great question.

    In a nutshell: our evangelism is to be constructed in such a way that Jesus Christ is shown to be able, willing, and authorized to secure the believer's destiny. It is in believing in Jesus Christ for eternal life that one receives salvation.

    When one entrusts his eternal destiny to Jesus by faith he receives everlasting life.

    You ask what it is that has caused other's to characterize my position as 'crossless'. Good question.

    1) Their misunderstanding. The gospel is the good news about Jesus Christ, period. In my preaching of the gospel I never fail to mention the cross of Christ, which is the central feature of any evangelism I do.

    2) Their insistence on quantifying saving faith by assent to creedal statements rather than simple personal trust in Jesus Christ as one's Savior.

    I don't tell someone in order to be saved that they must do this and this and this and believe this and this and this and this and this. I tell them that they must only believe in Christ for eternal life.

    This will beg the question, why can we trust in Jesus with our eternal destiny?

    Precisely because He is God in the flesh, died substitutionally and vicariously on the cross for your sins, and rose bodlily from the dead for your justification.

    Let us not confuse the good news with the bullseye.

    The genuiness of one's saving faith is not to be tested by one's adherence to orthodox docrtine, as important as that may be to persuade one that Christ is authorized, able, and willing to impart eternal life to the believer, and as important as that is to sanctification.

    Saving faith is exercised when one trusts fully in Jesus for their eternal well-being, relies cetainly upon Him for what He promises to the believer, being "fully convinced that what He [has] promised He [is] able to perform" (Ro 4:21).

    We hear all these things in politics about litmus tests. How would a prospective president appoint supreme court justices?

    The litmus test if someone has, without merit, obtained the grace of God resulting in justification, eternal life, and eternal forgiveness of sins, is whether or not the individual in question has fallen upon the grace of Christ whereby He has promised in His infinite gratuity, "Most assuredly I say to you, whoever believes in Me has everlasting life" (Jn 6:47).

    Where the disingenuous, inaccurate, and pejorative characterization has come from is those well-intentioned fundamentalist advocates who wish to put the cart before the horse. They wish to make the assent to their orthodox doctrinal creeds a mandated requirement for everlasting life, instead of seeing saving faith as a simple, yet fundamental certain trust in Jesus alone.

    I would be willing to entertain anymore of your questions.

    warm regards,

    Antonio da Rosa
     
  6. Free Gracer

    Free Gracer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    I take issue with your characterization of Free Grace advocates.

    Sanctification is to be viewed in no way as "optional". It is demanded. God does not trifle with sin, nor does he wink at it.

    But this is altogether different than saying that "a perseverance in faith, good works, that generally matures and grows until death" is guaranteed to every individual.

    To pose the absurdity of your allegation, let me just state simply:

    Does the possibility that a U.S. Soldier can go A.W.O.L. necessarily mean that fidelity and loyalty until one's enlistment is over is "optional" from the perspective of the U.S. govt?
     
  7. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally, as one who is completely a believer in grace (Free grace is redundant, for if it is not 'free', then it is not 'grace'.), I think there is quite a bit of "talking by each another" in this current debate.

    I do see the danger, if you will, of a 'super-reductionist' teaching, on what is necessary for saving faith. I likewise see the fault of missing the point, as some seem to, at times regarding what is necessary, by insisting on a certain phraseology and words.

    (I likewise see little difference between "front-loading" the gospel of grace with 'works' and "back-loading" the gospel of grace, with these same works, FTR.)

    There is a great deal of difference in a 'position' that one can be saved without 'knowing' about the full implications of the cross, and one who 'denies' the cross is necessary for salvation. IMO, the first is not a "crossless gospel"; the second definitely is a "crossless gospel", and can be seen in II Timothy, II Peter and Jude (Incidentally, a 'crossless gospel' is merely another version and flavor of 'another gospel'. Same difference!)

    Were the first a 'crossless' gospel, then one is forced to say (correctly, I add) that most of those in the gospels were actually saved with a 'crossless' gospel, not to even mention the OT saints. Even the disciples, who had been with Jesus for three (or more) years did not 'get it', in its entirety, until after the resurrection. Martha did not get it; how about the woman at the well; those John preached to at Aenon, near Salem (Jn. 3); or even the discourse Jesus had with the Jews in John 5, to name a few instances? No mention of the cross, in these instances, just believing in Him. Were those all bona-fide offers of eternal life? I certainly believe they were. Were these presentations really 'crossless'? No, it just was not the emphasis given in any of these messages.

    I, personally, would probably not go into anywhere as much detail 'teaching', say, those in the 5-8 year old range about the cross, as I would an adult class, simply because I would not think they can comprehend it that well, at that young age. But they surely can understand that "Jesus loves me, this I know!" And they can believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved, and I've seen children saved, just as adults who knew and understood far more.

    We are to be preaching the gospel of Jesus, not teaching a systematic theology class to the lost. May we never miss the real command of Scripture, here.

    Even Paul, and the other Apostles did not always use the same terminology, and wording. Peter's messages at Pentecost, in Solomon's porch, and addressing the Sanhedrin all clearly address the cross; his 'messages' at Lydda and Joppa do not mention the cross, that I have seen. In fact, there is no recpord that Peter preached at Lydda and Joppa. But the fact of the miracles said as much as any sermon could and/or did say.

    Paul, likewise, did not always use the same words, when preaching. His message at Antioch in Pisidia greatly emphasizes 'the cross'; his message at the Aeropagus has a different emphasis, as did his testimonial messages to Felix and to Aquila, which also differ, even from each other.

    The epistles of I Corinthains and Hebrews clearly spell out the full implications of the cross, in detail. The epistle of Jude and II and III John scarcely even touch on it. Different gospels? No, of course not -- just different emphases and purposes.

    We have more than enough 'false prophets', 'false brethren', and scoffers to confront, to go around for all of us. Let's be sure we do not turn cannibalistic on each other, and destroy ourselves, in the process. Another 'gracer' is not the real enemy here, folks. Let's try and keep our focus on that, as we hash these things out.

    FTR, I did not go to any seminary. And I was a firm believer in grace, before I ever heard of most of these men being mentioned, here.

    Just my two farthings worth. :)

    Ed
     
    #7 EdSutton, Jun 22, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 22, 2008
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,301
    Likes Received:
    784
    I believe we would do a great disservice to children should we ever stand in opposition to their request to understand to be saved or even to be baptized. At the same time I also believe firmly many if not most children who do find out after they have grown that they never really understood the gospel well enough as a child and make a true commitment as an adult.

    While Paul's addresses and letters may have had different emphasis it is also true that he was dealing with the lost (Acts 13:14-41) at times and also believers at others (Col 1:23). Just how clear the cross was emphasized depends completely on this difference.

    Any presentation of the cross is Theology. Somehow we have taken it upon ourselves to decide what individuals need and what portion of the gospel message needs to be withheld or doctored up so as not to offend the lost on a individual basis. This is a rather arrogant endeavor that fails to rely on the ability of the Holy Ghost to reach into a mans heart and assumes such activity is dependent on man to get it right.

    We have no business trying to get it right. Our job is only to give a clear presentation of what Christ did on the cross. Why he went to the cross. What does that sacrifice mean. What that sacrifice does for me. We need to get over our thinking that somehow we can know how to doctor up the gospel either sub-culturally or other wise.

    We are to contend for the faith. This is a doctrine that is clearly taught in scripture. The sacrifice of our Lord is precious and we are not to by pass it so as to cater to those who would be offended. Those who will not accept every bit of the story of the cross will remain lost until they do.
     
  9. skypair

    skypair
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, it is part and parcel of salvation. Sanctification is the Holy Spirit dwelling in the believer, 2Thes 2:13. He does not fail to produce some fruit. I think what you are saying is that 1) His fruit is not always what we think it should be nor 2) always seen by others, it being spiritual fruit.

    Some extremist antagonists on this board say that believers have the "mark of Christianity" (Rev 7:1). In between we have the Lordship Salvation bunch and all who get suspicious of other's salvations if they don't agree theologically with them. It sounds to me like Free Gracers are merely saying "Let's get 'em saved and under Christ, the Spirit's, tutelage, the Bible.

    skypair
     
  10. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    To BB Readers:

    Before I deal with the originator of this thread, may I encourage you to read the excerpt from Dr. J. B. Hixson’s new book, Getting the Gospel Wrong. See “Crossless” Advocates Have Gone too Far!


    LM
     
  11. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    Verified & Affirmed

    The GES’s “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel is a reductionist assault on the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. These men who hold to the GES gospel were deceived by egregious errors of Zane Hodges, the inventor of the Crossless gospel. Hodges most recognizable follower is Bob Wilkin, Executive Director of the GES.

    I invite you to read my article on the Crossless Interpretation of the Gospel for a synopsis of these radical views coming from Hodges, Wilkin and GES.

    The heresy of the Crossless gospel has been verified and affirmed by Antonio da Rosa in recent blog discussions. You can read the documentation of these extremist views from da Rosa, which originated with Hodges, by reading, Heresy of the “Crossless” Gospel: Verified & Affirmed.

    Here are just two examples from da Rosa:
    For a further review of these heretical views coming from advocates of the GES Crossless gospel read this article.


    LM
     
  12. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    With this post I want to dispel a misnomer being spread by some Grace Evangelical Society (GES) members, especially Antonio da Rosa (aka- Sock Puppet: fg me). The misnomer, and it is a major misnomer, is that GES is the voice of the Free Grace movement at large.

    The GES has in fact become a shrinking cell of extremists that have fallen into the trap of Zane Hodges’ “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel. This “contrary doctrine” which was invented by Zane Hodges is a “Crossless/Deityless” interpretation of the Gospel has been the cause of “division and offences” in the FG camp and churches. (Rom. 16:17-18).

    The heretical views of GES is the reason why they have been biblically marked so that unsuspecting believers will avoid them and the possibility falling into the trap of their heretical views. (Rom. 16:17)

    The teachings of Hodges is what has come to be known and accurately defined as the Crossless Gospel,” “REDEFINED Free Grace Theology” and the “Promise Only Gospel.” It is largely because of GES’s heretical views of the Gospel; many men in the Free Grace community have separated from GES and do not want their name and/or ministry to be identified with the GES.

    Exposure of the egregious errors of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, John Neimela, Jeremy Myers, and lesser knowns like Antonio da Rosa has put GES in cardiac arrest. It is my hope and prayer the GES is soon to become totally isolated and outside any relevant discussion of the Gospel. I close with a link to this important and defining article, Is “REDEFINED” Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?

    Lord willing not one more unsuspectng believer will be caught up in the heresy of the Crossless gospel.


    LM
     
    #12 Lou Martuneac, Jun 27, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 27, 2008
  13. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Crux of the "Crossless" Gospel

    The Crossless gospel controversy is NOT over what the GES men personally believe about the deity, death and resurrection of Christ.

    The controversy is NOT over whether or not they present the deity, death and resurrection of Christ to the unsaved.

    The controversy IS over Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkins’s insistence that the lost man does not have to be aware of, know, understand or believe any of these truths, but can, according to GES’s “ReDefined” Free Grace theology, still be born again.

    They insist the lost can be saved apart from knowing who the Lord Jesus Christ is (the Son of God- deity) and what He did to provide salvation.

    Hodges in the (JOTGES 14:1, Spring 01, pp. 11, 13 respectively) wrote,
    In an evangelistic setting they hold the Person of Jesus Christ in such low regard, Crossless/Deityless advoacte Antonio da Rosa stated the following under the question, Is Christ’s Deity Essential? Antonio wrote,
    LM
     
  14. Maestroh

    Maestroh
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    You Can Take Issue With It All You Wish

    That's OK; I take issue with your notion that a Mormon can be saved while a Lordship Salvation person is lost.

    And btw - don't confuse YOUR brand of Free Grace theology with Scripture's brand, sir.

    It most certainly is, Antonio. You show me a person who says - which is precisely what you folks say - "Get saved and then if you go out and murder someone and deny that God even exists, you still go to Heaven," and I'll show you someone whose PRACTICE is to view sanctification as optional even if they don't write it in their doctrinal statement as such.


    But this is altogether different than saying that "a perseverance in faith, good works, that generally matures and grows until death" is guaranteed to every individual.
    [/QUOTE]

    Does a believer do works by virtue of his status as now sealed by the Holy Spirit, indwelt by that same Spirit, and now being a new creature?

    If so - you've admitted the central tenet of Lordship Salvation; if not, then sanctification is indeed optional.

    A soldier who went AWOL would no longer be a soldier because he would be dishonorably discharged. To apply this in the way you wish to would mean that one could LOSE his salvation - he would no longer be a soldier.

    Again - sanctification for you Hodges-Wilkin followers is an optional second step. I grew up in churches infected with your teachings, and I do not need a lecture about them.

    Your OP merely demonstrates that the root determines the fruit. In a world where works simply DO NOT NECESSARILY follow faith (you see, that's 'lordship salvation' in y'alls world).....why should it surprise me that someone who believes that would act in the way you cite?
     
  15. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to agree with the 'quoted' quote, here. Scripture simply does not say what you are attempting to make it say, here. Where does Scripture use any of the above language? For example: The only time one can even find the word "perseverance" (or persevere) in the KJV, RV, ASV, ESV, DARBY, or YLT, (aside from 4 instances of "persevere" in the DARBY none of which say anything like the above) is in Eph. 6:18 which reads:
    Incidentally, 2 of 4 instance of "persevere" in the DARBY also have to do with prayer, as well.
    Bad choice of illustration, I think. An AWOL soldier is not 'automatically' "dishonorably discharged", I do not believe. He is and remains "a soldier" he is apprehended in some way, or surrenders, and is then brought up on charges in a court martial. If convicted of this offense, he would then be dishonorably discharged, perhaps, or might even be 'tossed into the clink" for 'desertion'. Perhaps you would recall the cases a few years ago, when 'Vietnam era 'draft-dodgers' and 'deserters' were granted 'amnesty', and allowed to return to the United States, without facing charges. Those in the military, who had gone AWOL to Canada were still considered 'in the military' and were still liable for a court-martial, until this was granted by the President, if you recall.
    Hey! Nice shot! :rolleyes:

    I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to, in this supposed example, but certainly don't consider myself any more of a follower of Hodges-Wilkin than of anyone else. I don't consider "sanctification" as any 'all or nothing' proposition or 'step', either, as you appear to, here.

    Sanctify (and sanctification) are both presented in Scripture in an "active" as well as a "passive" sense. The 'active' sense is up to us, under the leadership of the Lord; the 'passive' sense, is that of the Lord, and him, alone. (I Cor. 1:30; I Thes. 4:4,4; II Thes. 2:13; I Pet. 1:2; Jn. 17:17, 19; Eph. 5:26; I Thes. 5:23; Heb. 13:12; I Pet. 3:15; et al.)

    Likewise, the closely associated word "holy" is also used in both an 'active' and a 'passive' sense. (Rom. 11:16; 12:1; Eph. 1:4; 5:27; Col. 1:22; 3:12; I Pet. 1:15,16; II Pet. 3:11; et al.)

    Ed
     
  16. Free Gracer

    Free Gracer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    Soon I will be revealing more hypocrisy coming from the FGA leadership on my blog. See my profile for the web address.
     
  17. Lou Martuneac

    Lou Martuneac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    0
    You asked for a definition of the Crossless gospel. Why not let the tecahgers of ths recuftionsu heresy speak for themselves. Here a few samples:

    Here is an example from Hodges,
    Hodges, Bob Wilkin, Jeremy Meyers and Antonio da Rosa are on record claiming that a lost man can be saved apart from any knowledge, understanding or belief in the cross or resurrection of Christ. Earlier in the debate Antonio da Rosa wrote,
    One blogger asked Antonio, “Are you now prepared to say that belief in the deity of Christ is necessary for salvation, or His humanity, or His resurrection?”

    Antonio replied,
    The following quote on the MORMON JESUS is from Antonio da Rosa’s article titled “Will the REAL Jesus Please Stand Up” posted August 6, 2007.

    LM
     

Share This Page

Loading...