Putting the Focus on 3D Theology: Part 3

by Antonio da Rosa

John 17:3
Since there has been so much talk about John 17:3, I have taken it upon myself to pray over this verse and meditate upon it. Furthermore, I have attempted to wrestle with it in the larger context of the 4th gospel and the other writings of the Apostle John bearing significant testimony concerning its subject matter.

Idiomatic expression (as in the peculiarly Johannine construction here) can continue to have particular nuances, depending upon the context and subject matter of the expression itself. See the different ways that Christ uses the expression "The first will be last...", for example. Each instance of a specific usage needs to be viewed fresh and in light of its own peculiarities. This is how language works. Language is not wooden and inflexible, but able to be employed in various fluid and flexible ways. Certainly precision is able to be maintained, but it never has to be at the expense of rich and colorful usage. How Jesus Christ (or the Apostle John) uses a colloquial expression in one context does not determine how he uses it in another. Certainly we would need to examine the way it was used, but this is only one consideration in the process of coming to an interpretation.

Furthermore, John 17:3 does not come to us as in a vacuum. One must consider the import of other passages dealing with its subject matter, first by the same inspired author, and then by others, in order that one may come to valid interpretive conclusions concerning it. We would be remiss unless we did so. A careful study of the the Apostle John’s writings will inform our interpretation of John 17:3. It is more than unwise to take this verse as an island and form an entire theology out of it. To do so is reading into the text.

The gospel writer is abundantly clear that those who have eternal life can nevertheless be in a state of not knowing the Father:

1 John 2:3, "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, 'I know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him"

1 John 4:8, "He who does not love does not know God"

And in a state of not knowing the Son:

John 14:9, “...Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip?”

John 17:3 is like a predicate nominative construction. The main clause says, "Eternal life is this". If we were to substitute the subordinate substantival and appositional clause for the near demonstrative pronoun, this, we could have the construction: "Eternal life is that they may know [the Father]... and Jesus Christ..." In allowing the author to inform us concerning the subject of knowing the Father and the Son, we must, attending to the law of the excluded middle, conclude that John 17:3 cannot be asserting that the possession of eternal life guarantees or even initiates a superlative and intimate knowledge of God. “Sea World is that they may enjoy aquatic life.” (I keep using Sea World, because my family has year passes, and in fact, I am taking my son there today). What this expression about Sea World denotes is its core design, not a 1 to 1 correspondence. Design implies purpose. If I said that Sea World was designed to create an atmosphere and environment conducive for the enjoyment of aquatic life, it is to be noticed that such a design was created for that purpose. Thus, at the core of its design and purpose, eternal life has the capacity and potential of knowing God. But unless non-negotiable conditions are met in the life of the one possessing eternal life, the regenerate one will not achieve the purposes for which he was given that life.

One on one correspondence and wholesale equation of two words and/or concepts is not a common occurrence in everyday life or in the Bible. In actuality, it is a very uncommon one. Usually, where wholesale equation is made an articular predicate and articular predicate nominative are used, as in the Apostle John’s affirmation of the identity between “sin” and “lawlessness” in 1 John 3:4. Imagine I said, “Honey, go get the heater in the bathroom so that I might dry off the dog.” My daughter returns and says, “Dad, there is no heater in the bathroom, only this blow dryer.” To which I respond, “The blow dryer is the heater I was referring to.” In this construction, I have wholesale affirmed the identity of two concepts. It can’t be stressed enough that such a construction is absent in John 17:3. Furthermore, in 1 John 5:20, which we are about to look at more closely, we find that Jesus Christ, Himself, is in some sense equated with eternal life (although still not in the articular way described above). We are obviously dealing with figurative language in these texts, dealing with a certain measure of metaphor. Care must be applied to the interpretation of figurative language. Furthermore, we must recognize the need for some harmonization of the facts that both Jesus Christ, Himself, and that one may know Jesus Christ and the Father are in some sense parallel to the multi-facet concept that is eternal life. If one were to claim wholesale equality between Jesus Christ and that one may know Him with eternal life, it would diminish the values of all the concepts involved. An essential component of a dynamic concept is not the same as the concept itself.

1 John 5:20
The Apostle John does not leave us without clues in the interpretation of John 17:3. It is easily demonstrated that in the Gospel of John the crowning experience of life (Jn 12:24-26) and intimate knowledge of the Father and the Son (Jn 14:21, 23) does not come by grace through faith; they are not dependent upon believing in Jesus alone, but upon the added element of earnest devotion to God. This pertinent consideration necessarily places parameters on the interpretation of John 17:3 and is a real stumbling block to the assertions of 3d theology proponents. Within the Gospel of John the reader is met with conditions for experiencing the purposes inherent in the design of eternal life. Only a resolute blindness could miss and/or disregard the implications of such discovery:

Regeneration, the possession of new life, along with its inherent guarantees comes by faith alone in Christ alone.

The superlative and crowning experience of this life and intimate fellowship with God comes by faith + works.

To confuse and admix these two attested spiritual realities is to beget danger, as we will explore later (probably in another post). But suffice it to say for now, the very fabric of salvation by grace alone through faith alone is at stake.

As if a consideration of the subject matter in the Gospel of John wasn’t enough, in my prayertime, the Lord directed me to 1 John 5:20. In it we have all the concepts resident in John 17:3.

1 John 5:20, "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."

This last verse is very important. Here we are met with the concept that those who are regenerate have been given the capacity (Gk: dianoian, the understanding or intelligence) for the purpose of knowing God. Certainly the ina+subjunctive here is for purpose, and of course, there is no guarantee that the purpose will be fulfilled. As a matter of fact, it is equally able to be demonstrated, that for the Apostle John, knowing the "True One" may only be realized by those who are in fellowship with God, as verified by their obedience to His commands. This is everywhere evident throughout this epistle.

Having eternal life, being in Jesus Christ, enables us to know God in an intimate way. It gives us the capacity, described as an intelligence and understanding, for deep fellowship with God. This capacity, lying at the core of eternal life, is given for the purpose of knowing God. But as the whole epistle of 1 John shows, such intimate knowledge of God is reserved for those who, through their faith in Christ, keep God’s commandments. That this experiential knowledge of God comes upon the condition of works should be evident to all, and not by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

1 John 5:20 is very important in our discussion of John 17:3. It hearkens us back to John 17:3 where the concepts of “eternal life”, “true God”, Jesus Christ, and knowing God are present. 1 John 5:20 actually goes far in explaining what is meant by John 17:3 and should only be ignored at our peril. John 17:3, taken alone, and apart from information furnished to us by its author in other texts, could be used to provide the basis for a deep and mystical theological formulation. Such an understanding is often presented in beautiful language. The proponents of 3d theology show us a figure of a three-dimensional cube, but only at its face. They show its width and height, corners, and surface. But in reality, there is no depth. For when you look at its side, you discover that it is only 2d. 3d theology fails to rightly divide the word of truth, and much like Lordship Salvation, puts the cart before the horse. We will examine these tendencies in later posts.

Putting the Focus on 3D Theology: Part 2

by Antonio da Rosa

I. Eternal Life
Life, eternal life, God’s kind of life – we shouldn’t be surprised that such a life is multi-faceted, complex, and dynamic. This assumption is clearly demonstrated by the Scriptures. Natural life is much the same, and as a matter of fact, there are fascinating correlations to eternal life. As ought to be apparent, everyone on the face of the planet does in fact possess, in a sense, a quality that can be described as “life”. Human beings have the God given gift of pro-creation. Conception and birth bring forth a new “life” which is given unconditionally apart from the will of the one “life” has been bestowed upon. Resident in this new life are innate qualities that everyone, irrespective of who they are or what they do, is blessed with. Once initiated into “life”, the quality to which that “life” can attain is substantially dependent upon the individual himself. The degree to which one invests his life wisely will actuate a commensurate level of and capacity for “life”. There is, of course, senses in which people who are alive, nonetheless, cannot be described as having “life” wherein one is merely experiencing “dead” existence; though alive, one can be “dead” in experience in relation to the world and others.

A. Statement:
Eternal life is a dynamic life principle with several facets. This life is bestowed unconditionally upon the one who receives it as a gift, through purposeful faith in Jesus Christ (faith in Him for its possession), in what is called regeneration, or being “born again” – this birth not being according to the will of the flesh or man, but by the will of God, Himself (Jn 1:12-13). Furthermore, eternal life is no static entity – it also conditionally relates to one’s experience of life, being a result of one’s earnest devotion to Jesus Christ (Jn 12:24-26). This life comes only as the return of one’s life investment.

1. Pertaining Guarantee
As it is “eternal life” and God’s life that is created by the seed of God’s Word germinating in the heart of the individual (Jas 1:18), this life is necessarily endless and unending (Jn 11:26, “shall never ever die into eternity” –Gk). Furthermore, God created man to live in a body – it wasn’t until a spirit was introduced to the body by the breath of God did man become a “living being” (Gen 2:7). Though regenerate man, under the curse of sin, is subject to physical death, he nevertheless, by virtue and necessity of the possession of “eternal life”, is guaranteed physical resurrection (Jn 11:25b). Finally, the one born of God, by necessary indication of this birth, is excluded from the final judgement – where those who are “dead” in relation to God are confirmed in this state of “death” forever (Rev 20:14b) having already been under condemnation (Jn 3:18).

2. Pertaining Potentials
Knowing God, which results in a crowning experience of life, is contingent upon several factors, that if left unfulfilled, will prevent a regenerate person from such fellowship. Love actuated in the believer is one condition of knowing Him. The same author who gave us John 17:3 also wrote, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love” (1 Jn 4:7-8). In verse 7 and 11 of 1 John 4 the readers are instructed to love. There is no guarantee that the believer will love, and if he does not love he can neither have a dynamic experience of eternal life nor “know” God in this intimate sense. Love is not some ethereal, abstract notion. Love is laying down one’s life for his brethren (1 Jn 3:16b), helping his brother with material necessities (1 Jn 3:17); in reality it is having Christ’s commandments and keeping them (Jn 14:21)! Intimacy with God is only experienced by those who earnestly devote themselves to Jesus Christ.

The abundant experience of eternal life (both in time and eternity) does not come by way of a gift, as the primary and inherent guarantees do – unending life, physical resurrection, and exclusion from final judgement. No! This experience is the return on one’s investment of his life. This concept is famously illustrated in Mark 8:34-37:

...He said to them, "Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his life? Or what can a man give in exchange for his life?”

Certainly it should not be assumed at this point that God has not placed responsibility upon Himself in all of this. Firstly, it was He who initiated the familial relationship to begin with! Next, we are told by the Apostle Peter that God’s “divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life” along with “exceedingly great and precious promises” by which we “may be partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pe 1:3-4).

We will discuss these things more, and the implications of them in the next installment.

To be continued...

Antonio da Rosa

Putting the Focus on 3D Theology: Part 1

by Antonio da Rosa

Assessment of Tim’s Comments
The kind of discussion, this mode of thought, this stream of consciousness that comes from Tim in his statements here, and in his recent slew of posts, has about it a certain superficial plausibility. Indeed, it contains some real truth. But upon close scrutiny, it is impossibly vague and solves absolutely nothing. It is full of logical and hermeneutical errors. It is actually such a distortion of the truth using high-minded and spiritual language that it is seemingly cult-like, and Tim is the de facto charismatic guru and leader. It was very instructive going back and reading the progress that Tim has made in the formulation of this manner of doctrine, as you can see a progressive history of it in his blog posts and comments. Tim had some very good questions and concerns about the Promise-Only view of saving faith , but unfortunately no one took the time to answer these objections, and it seems Tim didn’t look very far in seeking to get them properly and sufficiently answered. In response to this, it seems, Tim got a “revelation” and started using it as a working thesis to solve the problems that he saw in the current “food fight” as he puts it. The problem is that he has superimposed this thesis onto the scriptures, and uses it as his interpretive grid. Now, so thoroughly submerged into this formulation, Tim “sees” his doctrine everywhere, while nevertheless remaining obstinately blind to its innate contradictions and scriptural imprecision. This process that I have sensed is precisely how many cults have been instituted in the past. The more questions that get raised concerning the many difficulties and errors in his formulations, the more entrenched and passionate (and somewhat vitriolic) he becomes in both defending and propagating it.

Furthermore, this doctrine has the testimony and appearance of a superlative spiritual phenomenon and yet smacks of the pride that is often associated with those who have had a “second blessing”.

Next, it is mighty presumptuous to make a sweeping judgement concerning the effects of a teaching without a shred of support arguing why such an effect is both logical and inevitable. The shock and outrage of placing obstacles between man and a living relationship with God! What kind of excess it this? Does Tim really believe that Zane’s theology (or mine for that matter) is guilty of such a crime? I submit that if he can say so in the sincerity of his heart (and I can’t imagine that he can, God only knows) that he is nevertheless sincerely ignorant of what we actually believe and teach! Furthermore, Tim’s pronouncement is necessarily divorced from a consideration of the wide field of available material and teaching that has the present experience of life as its focal in Free Grace Theology (which by the way is an essential teaching of it, both promoted and emphasized!), for if he had considered it, the result would have been the taking of the bite out of his bark, and the wind from his sails. Furthermore, there has been alot of work into the propositional nature of the saving message (I, for one, having developed solid arguments in print for it as others). Tim’s original post has all the earmarks of mischaracterization and a straw man effigy.

Finally, we are left with the task of finding the truth. How this will be accomplished is through a reasoned and precise appeal to Scripture using the timeless principles of hermeneutics expressed through God given articulation and logic. At the outset, we must admit that this is a humbling experience, as this is the very Word of God we are attempting to decipher. Pride must must make way for humility, and the Bible must be made to speak for itself. In allowing the Bible to speak, we will necessarily find that it is at odds with Tim and Jim’s doctrine in this case. The lack of applying sound hermeneutical principles by Tim to the study of the Bible has produced great error, tragic and even dangerous error, as we will later note.

An Impression
On this note, I get the impression that to Tim and Jim, Michele is like an experiment, and Michele is all too willing of a participant in it. To me, it is like the training of an animal to them. Much time has been invested to illicit the desired responses, and reward is given when these responses occur, even in the spite of less than perfect results (which is never a description of this formulation anyway). But little by little, they are making her into a creature of their bend. If my impression is even somewhat correct, this is shameless. Furthermore, there is evident the “mother bear” syndrome common in cultic-type situations with Tim’s protection of his “sister”. This is a most unfortunate situation, as Michele has admitted her issues with involvement in cults (plural) in the past, and seems to be following into such a mode again.

I furthermore have read the history of Michele in this matter from her blog. She used to use words like “seem” and “possibly” with much other subjunctive expression, but now confidently assumes herself as an authority in these matters of soteriology with the same lack of care and precision that her teachers use. Getting any straight answers from her has been impossible because of the manifest and ubiquitous failures of this system. There are no shortcuts to the proper mining of God’s truth and the one who is going to do so will need the proper skill and tools. It is if Michele was sticking to the wading pool but now entertains her prowess in swimming in the rapids. The illustration that Tim uses in this article, with a little twist, ironically describes his formulations. This system keeps one wading in the shallow crib, supposing himself to be swimming in the deep lake. Unfortunately, it is not good advice in this case to knock the bottom out of the swimming crib, because its occupants are liable to drown!

Concluding Thought in this First Installment
The reticence to provide a reasoned exposition and appeal to scripture in support of this formulation, and the necessity to use much allegory, metaphor, and simple prose to describe it speaks volumes. This formulation has been brewing for over a year (and most likely for years) but has yet to produce a definitive and scholarly defense of it with which people can properly access and consider it.

To be continued...

What about the Unevangelized? Part 5

by Matthew


It is such a long time since I posted here. I thought it might be an idea to finish off the series I began back in 2009.

To summarise where we got to, in the first part we concluded that it is logical to expect that God has made some provision for those who have not heard the offer of eternal life by human means. We followed this by considering different views offered by evangelicals regarding the likelihood of the salvation of some of the unevangelized. The view Universal Premortem Opportunism was explained and identified as the view this blogger would defend.

Universal Premortem Opportunism holds that God has offered the opportunity to all persons to accept or reject the offer of eternal life. In the event of a person never encountering a human evangelist, she would receive sufficient revelation before her death to enable her to believe. In part 3 we looked at a number of possible Scriptural arguments for this position.

In part 4 we addressed the verse Romans 10:14, which is often used to assert that nobody can be saved without encountering an human preacher or evangelist. It was argued to the contrary, that Paul was making a rhetorical point to establish that Israel's condemnation was just.

This post will address the big objection that a lot of evangelicals will have to the theory of Universal Opportunism. This is that it takes away the motivation for evangelism? Surely the need to save sinners from a lost eternity is the chief motive for evangelism. If there is a possibility that God will save sinners independently of our gospel missions, are not our efforts redundant?

We have all heard a missionary speaker come to our churches and give a stark motivational talk. He speaks of the spiritual darkness of the land in which he ministers, he speaks of the ignorance of the natives of that land. He warns of how men and women are dying in that country and others daily and are going to an eternity of darkness and torment.

Such talks have motivated many blessed brothers and sisters to answer the call of Christ to go out into the world and labour for Him. I do not want to in any way diminish the value of having an healthy concern for those who are in spiritual darkness and having a consciousness of the reality of condemnation for those who do not believe. Nevertheless, I do not see anything exactly resembling this kind of motivational talk in the New Testament. We have Ezekiel 3:18-19, but this was a warning about God's temporal judgment on Israel and they were a people who already had the law. Nowhere does Paul, Peter, or John warn their readers about the millions who are perishing daily and motivate them on that basis. Romans 10:14 has been used that way, but as I argued in part 4, this is a misreading of Paul's argument.

I do worry that this style of motivational talk can be unhealthy. It can come across as emotional blackmail and lead to a negative view of missionaries. It could also lead to unhelpful guilt in those who are not on the mission field but who give generously and contribute to the work of Christ in many valuable ways. It may also prevent rational and wise contemplation over what kind of work Christians take up.

I think many will agree with me that too many Christians have an unbalanced view of conversion and evangelism. In a lot of American churches, they talk a lot about 'soul-winning' (without much awareness of the diversity of the way the word 'soul' is used in Scripture), but not very much about making disciples. There is a tendency to think of salvation as simply being saved from eternal condemnation, and not entrance into a whole new sphere of life. God's purpose is not simply to save people from the Lake of Fire, but to gather together a people who will live in a way that is conformed to the pattern of divinized humanity in Christ. Salvation is not just about plucking sinners from the fire, but about shaping and transforming lives and building communities devoted to Christ. I believe God can give eternal life to the unevangelised before it's too late, but He cannot make them into faithful and devoted disciples without our getting involved.

If it is true that only those who have encountered a human missionary have any hope of eternal life, then it might be seen that making disciples is a waste. Why should a missionary spend time discipling his converts and planting churches? Would it not be more sensible to travel to the next village and save them from a lost eternity? The emphasis of missionary work on simply rescuing 'souls' might actually lead to an unbalanced approach to missiology.

Away With Thy Tools!

by Antonio da Rosa

Today, a new friend shared this devotion with me based upon Exodus 20:25 and written by Charles Spurgeon. The depth and passion of this man is clear and his words are penetrating. I will dispense with this message's implications against Lordship Salvation, for they will ring loud and true as you read his statement.

"If thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it." {Ex 20:25}

God’s altar was to be built of unhewn stones, that no trace of human skill or labour might be seen upon it. Human wisdom delights to trim and arrange the doctrines of the cross into a system more artificial and more congenial with the depraved tastes of fallen nature; instead, however, of improving the gospel carnal wisdom pollutes it, until it becomes another gospel, and not the truth of God at all. All alterations and amendments of the Lord’s own Word are defilements and pollutions.

The proud heart of man is very anxious to have a hand in the justification of the soul before God; preparations for Christ are dreamed of, humblings and repentings are trusted in, good works are cried up, natural ability is much vaunted, and by all means the attempt is made to lift up human tools upon the divine altar. It were well if sinners would remember that so far from perfecting the Saviour’s work, their carnal confidences only pollute and dishonour it. The Lord alone must be exalted in the work of atonement, and not a single mark of man’s chisel or hammer will be endured.

There is an inherent blasphemy in seeking to add to what Christ Jesus in his dying moments declared to be finished, or to improve that in which the Lord Jehovah finds perfect satisfaction. Trembling sinner, away with thy tools, and fall upon thy knees in humble supplication; and accept the Lord Jesus to be the altar of thine atonement, and rest in him alone.

Charles H. Spurgeon

One of My Favorite Quotes from Zane Hodges

by Antonio da Rosa

I have defended Free Grace Theology for a number of years now, and have read a variety of books on the subject. Out of the great abundance of available soundbites, the following quote from Zane Hodges rises to a position of prominence in my mind. In it is distilled for us, in a memorable way, the utter and obvious senselessness of the Lordship Salvation view. Commenting on Mark 8:34-35 and its parallels in Matthew 16:24-25; Luke 9:23-24; and allusion in John 12:25, Zane C. Hodges writes:

It would be a mistake to think here of heaven or hell. [This invitation]... is a call to self-denial and bearing one's cross. It is a call to follow Jesus, that is, a call to discipleship.

Of course, there are many who equate such a call with conversion, but by so doing they either explicitly or implicitly deny the freeness of the gospel. By no stretch of the imagination is the demand for self-denial and self-sacrifice an invitation to receive a free gift. The attempt to harmonize these polarities always ends either in hopeless absurdity or in theological sophistry.

In this respect the man on the street is often more perceptive than the theologian. If someone were to offer him a gift in return for self-denying obedience, he would readily recognize that offer as grotesquely misrepresented! [Zane C. Hodges, Grace in Eclipse, 2nd Edition, p 29]

Has not this assessment been proven correct time and again in the writings of Lordship Salvation advocates? How often has our reason been assaulted as we have been subjected to the "hopeless absurdity" and "theological sophistry" of Lordship Salvation articulation? How else are we to evaluate statements such as, "Salvation is a gift that will cost you everything"?

Charles C. Ryrie and Zane Hodges

by Antonio da Rosa

Don Reiher, speaking in regards to the content of saving faith, has done a good job of showing that the Grace Evangelical Society, in general, and Zane Hodges, in particular, has "not changed[d] [their] theology to the degree [that their] accusers indicate"[1] in the current issue of the Grace Evangelical Society's Journal. In presenting the arguments in favor of his position, Don states this about a book by Zane Hodges, "The Hungry Inherit", which was first published in 1972:

[It is] clear in this book that the object of saving faith is Jesus' promise of everlasting life, not of Jesus' deity, death, and resurrection... Hodges was clearly saying in 1972 that the object of saving faith is the living water, the promise of life, not His person and work.[2]

It can be easily substantiated from a cursory read of the whole book that Hodges considered the encounter of Jesus with the woman of Sychar in John 4 to be normative evangelistic expression from the pen of the Apostle John for the Church age. Don Reiher quotes the following from the 1972 version of "The Hungry Inherit" after this introduction, "Note these words, intended to lead unbelievers today to faith in Christ"[3]:

Ignorant she had come, enlightened she had left. Empty she had arrived, full she had departed. The gift of God? She knew it now - eternal life inexhaustibly welling up within the heart! "Who is it that saith to thee, 'Give me to drink'? She knew Him now - the Christ, the Savior of the World![4]

In 1997, Zane Hodges put out a third edition of this same book, printed this time by his own publishing company, Redencion Viva. Owning all three versions of the book, (the two others by Moody,1972, and Multinomah Press, 1980) and comparing them has led me to believe that there is no disparity of thought in regards to the core conviction of Zane Hodges - eternal life is the irrevocable present possession of the one who simply believes in Jesus through His promise to guarantee this life to the believer. As a matter of fact, this foundational belief is strengthened further with each new version.

In the 1997, Redencion Viva edition, again commenting on the woman at the well of Sychar, Zane states:

The writer of the story we are looking at was the Apostle John. The book in which he placed the story had this simple purpose: "but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name" (Jn.20:31). Now the woman knew the two things Jesus had said she needed to know. First, she finally knew "the gift of God."... it was nothing less than eternal life, God's marvelous gift to thirsty souls. But she also now knew "who it was who said to her, 'Give Me a drink.'" As He had just declared, He was the Messiah - the Christ... she believed what He said [John 4:28, 29]... [a]nd the moment she did she received the gift of eternal life. The truth of His person carried that water with it, and everyone who believed that truth possessed "life in His name." As John the Apostle was later to write: "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God' (1 Jn 5:1). The woman believed that now. So she now had God's living water!... Jesus had meant that once this woman knew what God wanted to give her and knew who He himself was, she would already have the gift of living water.[5]

It can't be stated forcefully enough that Zane did not subscribe to the Free Grace Alliance's pre-qualification and theological legalism, which comes in the form of checklist evangelism, in these versions of his book.

I have read a few of Charles Ryrie's books: Basic Theology, So Great Salvation, and Balancing the Christian Life, as well as essays he has written in other works. They have been tremendously helpful in providing a solid framework by which I could organize my own systematic theology, dispensationalism, and Free Grace Theology. Charles has laid groundwork in these areas that are still of great benefit today. In the latest version of Zane Hodges' book "The Hungry Inherit," Charles Ryrie gives the foreword. Here are some points of interest:

The burden of this work is to distinguish clearly salvation and discipleship. No distinction is more vital to theology, more basic to a correct understanding of the New Testament, or more relevant to every believer's life and witness. The distinction is introduced through two of our Lord's earliest conversations [the woman at the well and the interview with Nicodemus]... When one finishes this book, there can be no mistaking the fact that the free gift of the water of life and the call to discipleship are clearly distinguished in the New Testament...

Mr. Hodges is completely qualified in the technical aspects of this work...

As one who is known to share the convictions expressed in this work, I am very grateful to God for its publication. May it be widely read and used of the Lord to clarify and exalt His matchless grace.[6]

The Hungry Inherit clearly does not give any impression that anything other or greater than the simple faith expressed by the woman at the well is necessary in this post-cross era for the appropriation of eternal life. Was Dr. Ryrie beguiled or disengaged from critical observation at the time he gave his glowing and unqualified endorsement? I don't know. Nor have I been privy to any conversations concerning the matter at hand with him either in public or private.

Nevertheless, it is my opinion, which is based upon a educated hunch, that he would be very cautious in the way that he approached this subject, and would reserve judgement until he heard first-hand accounts and arguments from both sides and then compare them to scripture.

Who knows. In light of his high regard for Zane's qualifications and work, he may end up sharing the sentiments of Dr. Earl Radmacher, who stated in one of his books:

...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.[7]

I believe that the position of Zane Hodges and the GES has the full support of and fidelity to the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, I am persuaded that Charles would agree to Earl's description of Zane Hodges, and if perchance he would do the "investigation" that it would demonstrate to him Zane's "exegetical expertise," "hermeneutical care," "humility," "untiring diligence," and "wisdom".

Or who knows, maybe he already subscribes to Zane's position. He did endorse it by way of his foreword...

Blessings and peace to you all

[1] Reiher, Donald, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Spring, 2010, pg 48
[2] Ibid., pgs 38-39
[3] Ibid., pg 39
[4] Hodges, Zane, The Hungry Inherit, First Edition, Moody Press, 1972, pg 18 (Don states it is from pg 20; I have the hardcover, I don't know if there was a softcover, and this might account for the discrepancy)
[5] Hodges, Zane, The Hungry Inherit, Third Edition, Redencion Viva, 1998, pg 20
[6] Ryrie, Charles, Forward to The Hungry Inherit, 1972, pgs 7-8
[7] Radmacher, Earl, Salvation, Word Publishing, 2000, pgs IX-X

How can a person positively identify another?

by Antonio da Rosa

For the purpose of referencing someone in a conversation or communication, what exactly must one do in order to positively identify someone?

Usually a first name will do among friends who through the context of their conversation mutually recognize the name and thus the person so named. Here positive ID occurs.

Often, though, persons communicating know more than one individual who shares a first name that has been referenced in conversation. Therefore it is encumbant upon the communicator referencing the third party individual to use a last name. At this point concencus can be achieved in a group and positive identification of an individual occurs.

To go further, at times a last name is not known, and thus attributes and/or characteristics of the intended referenced individual must be shared so that a delineation can occur, allowing positive identification to be made through shared awareness of how these traits delimit reference to a certain individual.

But what about expressed misconceptions in the context of communication, even great ones? Will egregious misconceptions necessarily preclude the ability to positively identify and reference an individual?

What if I were trying to convey a reference and positive identification of an individual in a conversation with a friend or group of people and I said something like this:

In order for you to get legislation enacted for your particular purpose, you must form a team of lobbyists to entreat the tax-fighting, card-carrying NRA member, pro-life California Governor-elect, Jerry Brown

Have I for the purpose of the communication identified the individual with whom I am encouraging lobbyist activity for the benefit of my hearers?

If you would say, "No," my question to you would be, "Why not?"

As a conclusion to this brief discussion, I will provide the two ways that positive identification for the purpose of reference in commmunication can occur:

1. A single unique reference is made about the individual
2. A conglomerant of references, attributes, and characterstics, that form a unique delimiting picture is given about the individual

When speaking to another about Jesus Christ, any one of a multitude of individual unique delimiting informations about Him can be given that will positively identify Him, and thus precise reference can be made, or a host of information, that when taken as a whole will create a unique picture, and accordingly, positively ID Him.

If a person is introduced to Jesus Christ through passages of the New Testament and are confronted with His unique claim to guarantee everlasting life to anyone who entrusts their eternal destiny to Him, and then so does, what are the arguments against this person having eternal life, even in the presence of egregious misconceptions about the Person and Work of Christ?