The Hypocrisy of the Director of the Free Grace Alliance

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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?

 

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!

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

 

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