Zane Hodges has passed and recieved his rewards...

Pinoybaptist,

If we let Scripture speak, then sinners who trust Jesus for salvation have the blood applied to them and are thereby redeemed.

 

The finished work of Christ at Calvary ensures the salvation of the elect, who will certainly believe.

The point here has nothing to do with the salvation of unbelievers. It has to do with the fact that Israel's unbelief does not mean God is unfaithful. It seems to point exactly to the opposite of your position.

 

Why not?

What do you believe is the differences between Charlie Bing, Bob Wilkin, and Zane Hodges?

 

==I always find it a bit troubling when someone says something along the lines of "I know that is what Scripture says, but...". You have just, in a single stroke, cancelled out the whole picture that Scripture paints. I showed you what Scripture said about the Gospel (1Cor 15:1-4, Rom 10:9, Lk 24:46-47, Acts 17:30-31, 26:17-23, etc). We could even look to John 3:16 and other such passages. To be saved a person must believe that Christ died for thier sins and rose again on the third day. That is what Scripture means when it tells people to believe in the Lord Jesus. Telling people to believe "in Christs promise to save" while leaving out the cross and the empty tomb is not giving people the Biblical Gospel (that saves).

==Nobody said anything about a "doctrinal quiz" that must be passed. Believing in the death of Christ on the cross for our sins and that He rose on the third day is hardly a "doctrinal quiz". It is the Biblical requirements for salvation. It is what is meant when Scripture says "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). How do I know? The statements that define what that faith believes. You are basing your position on part of the Scriptures. To rightly divide the Word of truth you must take the whole witness of Scripture into consideration.

You say that submitting to the Lordship of Christ is not a part of true saving faith. Yet it is Scripture that says to be saved a person must "confess...Jesus as Lord" (Rom 10:9). Confess is to agree, Lord is a master. True saving faith confesses that Jesus is Lord, it agrees that He is the Master.

You say that submitting to the Lordship of Christ is not part of true saving faith, yet it was the Lord Jesus Himself who warned that His sheep (true believers) follow Him (Jn 10:27). In order to "follow Him" we must die to ourselves. Christ warned:

"If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me." -Luke 9:23

Christians are those who have by faith turned to Christ as their Lord (and Savior). Those who want salvation without Christ's Lordship will get neither.

The extreme non-Lordship position of Hodges, Wilkin, Bing, and Evans will be the reason hundreds (if not thousands) of people spend eternity in hell. While on earth Christ warned about the dangers of shallow faith or light hearted commitment. The extreme non-Lordship folks have ignored that warning. It sounds like you are among those who have ignored our Lord's warning about that. I pray I am wrong.

==But according to the passages I quoted, it is true. We could go around that circle all day and night. What we must do is take all of Scripture and not just isolated verses. See above.

==But there is in plenty of other passages such as 1Cor. 15:1-4 where Paul defines the Gospel He preached. Maybe yours is different from Paul's?

Again we must take the whole picture and not just one part.

==Wilkin, like you, denies that a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Christ in order to be saved.

==Yet Scripture tells us that one must believe those things to be saved (see above). Saving faith is a gift from God (Eph 2:8-9, Heb 12:2, 1Pet 1:21, 1Cor 1:26-31, Phil 1:29, 2Tim 2:24-25, etc).

==That is very twisted logic. You seem to be saying that because more Scriptures don't mention it than do then it is not required. Yet all Scripture is from God and all of it must be taken into consideration.

==A person who does not believe in Christ's finished work has not believed the Gospel and is not saved (Rom 10:9, 1Cor 15:2).

 

Curious as to why you omitted verses like Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9-10, Romans 10:13?

 

All of which speak of Jesus as Lord being part of saving faith, and thus disproving your notion (and Hodge's as well). The Bible clearly includes the lordship of Christ as a part of saving faith. Hodges did not.

 

==And it is not just so-called "Lordship" folks like myself calling Hodges on the carpet (so to speak). Even "freegrace" folks are warning about the dangers of GES...

"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." -SOURCE

==From reading your replies (etc) I can see where you would not have any problems with GES.

==I am not sure how that statement proves your agreement with what I said. In fact, it seems you are doing the exact thing I cautioned against. If you would go back you would find that my position is not based on one "isolated" text, but on the whole testimony of Scripture. Of course salvation is by faith in Christ alone. Nobody disputes that. The issue of debate is the substance of that faith. Scripture teaches that "believing in Christ" is not just believing that He gives eternal life to those who believe in Him but it is also believing in His Lordship, His death on the cross for our sins and His resurrection. Take those things out and there is no more good news (Acts 17:29-31, Rom 10:9, 1Cor 15:1-3, Lk 24:46-47, etc). I would like to see you deal with passages like 1Cor. 15:1-3 where Paul describes the Gospel he preached as including the death and resurrection of Christ. I would like to see you deal with his ministry in the book of Acts where it is recorded on several occasions that he preached the very same Gospel he spoke of in 1Cor 15:1-3 (Acts 13:23-39, 17:1-5, 17:22-31, 23:6, etc). Your position subtracts from what people are required to believe (about Christ) in order to be saved.

==I am asking you to take the whole council of Scripture into consideration instead of isolating your pet verses and ignoring the others.

==Let's see what you said they failed to mention:

"Do you confess Jesus as your Lord right now"

==Paul said "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9). So if they failed to mention Christ's Lordship to you that was a major failure on their part.

"Do you understand his substitutionary death and resurrection for you right now"

==Paul said that the Gospel he preached included the death of Christ for our sins according to the Scriptures and the resurrection (1Cor 15:1-3). If they left out the cross, if they left out the resurrection, then they failed to preach the Biblical Gospel. You may have been saved notwithstanding their failures but that does not change the fact that they failed to obey the Scriptures.

Besides all of that, we judge truth by Scripture and not experience. After all salvation is of the Lord, it is a work of the Lord, and not the work of man. But that does not change the fact that they did not faithfully preach the whole council of God.

 

Yes, indeed. And this itself provides the most conclusive evidence against Hodges. Hodges let his personal preferences get in the way of the plain teaching of the Scriptures.

 

Zane Hodges / Wilkin / Charlie Bing comparison

I have observed this thread with a queasy feeling. I personally disagree with much of Zane Hodges' teaching. However, in view of the fact that the man just passed away, would it not be more noble and loving to avoid harsh attacks at this time? Again, I recognize many of you have legitimate disagreements with his teaching. Yet, many of these posts are venomous and seem to be painted with a very broad (and very judgmental) brush. I am not saying that there are not implications for what authors/theologians teach. Yet, is this really how you would like those who disagree with you to respond at the time of your passing?

Also, there is a clear distinction between Wilkin/Hodges and Dr. Bing. Wilkin/Hodges reject the notion that repentance is necessary for salvation. Charlie Bing has clearly stated, on many occasions, that repentance is a vitally important component of salvation. I am in strong agreement with him on the "change of heart" definition of metanoia/metanoeo, rejecting the "turn from sin" idea, in its soteriological context. Please don't start another extended thread on the idea of repentance. If you disagree, that's certainly your right. I am simply pointing out the differences between these three men. It has been my experience that though Dr. Charles Stanley is often lumped in with Zane Hodges, due to some similar ideas regarding the fate of those who walk away from the faith, Stanley is actually closer to Dr. Bing in his teaching. He clearly teaches repentance, in the change of mind context. I just received a mailout regarding this very idea.

Additionally, Dr. Bing, a man I hold in very high regard (as I do Dr. Stanley), spends much of his time overseas on the mission field, training pastors in very remote areas in evangelism. You may disagree with Dr. Bing, but he is actively seeking to make a difference for Christ. Dr. Bing is a moderate free-grace proponent, as are (in my opinion) Ron Rhodes, Stanley, Norman Geisler, and Chuck Swindoll. Wilkin/Hodges are on the extreme end of the free grace scale, and there are many other points of disagreement other than repentance. Most free grace proponents I know are not comfortable with the GES.

 

==As you know, the truth does not wait for anyone nor does it take a day off. The errors of Zane Hodges are still alive and well and will be for years to come. There is no telling the damage that man did to the church. So while I have sympathy for his family and friends, I must continue speaking out against the errors and confusion he left behind.

==Dr. Stanley is "lumped" in with Hodges because his book "Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure" depends heavily upon the teachings of Hodges. It seems that some of the ideas Dr. Stanley wrote in his book no longer represent his positions.

==I don't consider the moderate free-grace position a major problem. Do I believe they are wrong on points? Yes. But nothing that will cause people to end up in hell. Men like Charles Stanley, Charles Ryrie, and Ron Rhodes (etc) are wonderful teachers whose work I generally admire. The heretics are in the extreme free-grace camp (not the moderate).

 

Martin writes:
"==Dr. Stanley is "lumped" in with Hodges because his book "Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure" depends heavily upon the teachings of Hodges. It seems that some of the ideas Dr. Stanley wrote in his book no longer represent his positions."

drfuss: But it seems Dr. Stanley's basic ideas on the matter are still the same. I just copied the following from his Website under the section on those who stop believing:

"I imagine that a woman who has gone through an experience like the one described above would always have faith in firemen and their nets. But even if she did not, the fact remains that she was saved from the fire. In the same way, in all probability, a Christian who has expressed faith in Christ and experienced forgiveness of sin will always believe that forgiveness is found through Him. But even if the believer does not, the fact remains that he is forgiven."

 

Gentlemen and ladies: I hardly think that the announcement of the death of this long-time Bible teacher is the place to debate and disparage his views.