Unashamed of Grace

Friday, January 25, 2008

I am proud to be one of Zane Hodges' godchildren

by Matthew

Phil Johnson described Zane Hodges as the 'godfather of antinomianism.' Well, I am proud to be one of his godchildren.

This evening my pastor was giving a lecture on Hebrews. He gave us the usual stuff about inheritance being salvation and the warning passages being for false professors. Afterwards I recommended to him Zane Hodges' commentary on Hebrews in the Bible Knowledge Commentary.

Critics of consistent Free Grace theology give us a lot of hot air about Zane Hodges being the first person to come up with this theology. It means nothing.

God has always raised up individuals and used them to reveal the truths necessary for a particular time.

God raised up Enoch as a testimony to God's judgment on a wicked world. God raised up Moses to reveal Himself to the Hebrews in captivity. God raised up Daniel to reveal God's plans for the time of Gentile dominance. God raised up the apostle Paul to reveal the distinctive truth of the Church as the Body of Christ. God raised up John to reveal the closure of this dispensation and what should follow it.

In more recent history, God has continued to raise up men to serve as a light to the truths of His word. God raised up John Wycliffe to show the need for a turning back to God's word and away from superstition. God raised up Luther to point to the great truth of justification by faith and then He raised up John Calvin to bring more clarity to this doctrine, particularly in relation to the eternal security of the believer. God raised up John Wesley and George Whitefield to show the vital necessity of personal conversion. He raised up John Nelson Darby to show us the distinction between Israel and the Church.

It should hardly be a surprise that God is using Zane Hodges to bring a right understanding of the nature of saving faith. This is the vital truth for this age. This is needed truth for the last days.

As the dispensation closes and we see an ever greater departure from the faith, God has been pleased to give those who are willing to listen a greater understanding of the freeness of grace.

But let us not forget that the precious insights of Zane Hodges also stand on the legacy of Dispensationalism, with its commitment to the heavenly positionn of the believer and the possibility of real assurance through knowledge of the Saviour. The new and blessed doctrines of Free Grace would never have come without the heritage of those men who sought to move on from the milk of the Reformation and to find the meat of the rightly divided Word of God; men such as JN Darby, William Kelly, CI Scofield, LS Chafer and John Walvoord. They discovered the fresh light of God's Word, just as Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and Joseph Dillow have discovered new light today.

Labels: Assurance of Salvation, Calvinism, Free Grace, gospel

43 Comments:

I can't believe that you could say such a thing, Matthew! You know how everyone hates that man! You set yourself up for alot of prejudices by identifying with that name.

I can't believe that you would do this! Don't you see that someone will charge you with following man, not God?

Antonio

By Antonio, at Friday, January 25, 2008 4:17:00 PM
Matthew -

Quit following Antonio. j/k

By Jon Lee, at Friday, January 25, 2008 4:22:00 PM
Bro. Matthew,

I also appreciate a lot of bro. Hodges' work. I still say his understanding & insight on the Epistle of James & John are second to none, first-rate. I appreciate he & bro. Wilkin for a lot of what they do & have taught at GES, especially some earlier works. They certainly have helped many believers such as myself. I am thankful & agree with you that bro. Hodges' teaching on Hebrews also has been extremely helpful. I am not on the bandwagon of those that outright attack him because I believe he has been & continues to be in a lot of ways, very helpful. I just personally disagree with the teaching of refined free-grace as I understand it. I have stated my disagreement with it elsewhere & won't do so again here. But on bro. Hodges' teaching in these Epistles & some other things, especially his personal grace in dealing with his detractors, I appreciate & applaud him. You all are a blessing to me. God Bless.

By David Wyatt, at Friday, January 25, 2008 4:39:00 PM
David,

God bless you!

Hey Matthew,

I see that you are understanding the development of doctrine, such as Free Grace the same way I do. I really appreciate Darby, Scofield, Chafer, and Walvoord. If you study them closely, you will see them refining and developing, each in his own generation. And then we have Zane Hodges, who refined from them. We must include Ryrie, because many of his thoughts were seminal.

But who is next?

I would like to say that you are, Matthew.

Antonio

By Antonio, at Friday, January 25, 2008 6:03:00 PM
Mr. Lee,

We were so close not too long ago. I want to tell you that I love you, even though we heartily disagree. And I look forward to the day where we will drink and eat together in the kingdom of God.

Antonio

PS: May we walk in white with Jesus on that day!

By Antonio, at Friday, January 25, 2008 6:05:00 PM
Jon, I want to be just like Antonio when I grow up!

By Matthew Celestine, at Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:18:00 AM
David, thanks for your thoughts.

By Matthew Celestine, at Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:18:00 AM
"Don't you see that someone will charge you with following man, not God?"

Oh yeah.

Good job I did not say that he was one of the Two Witnesses that should arise in the end times (the other being yourself). That might have been a bit much for some people.

"I would like to say that you are, Matthew."

You flatterer!

Unlikely with my not being a Old Tesament or New Testament scholar.

My frustration with recent Dispensationalists like Walvoord and Ryrie is their tendency to play down the heavenly/ earthly dualism.

My frustration with older Dispensationalists like Darby and Larkin is their tendency to undermine Synoptic teaching.

I dont know exactly where Dispensationalism needs to go.

I think re-thinking the rapture ought to be a priority, but you'll all disagree with me on that.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:24:00 AM
I have to admit that I did not read past the beginning of the post. Since in an other thread the content was dismissed because of the title... I take the title of this thread to be of more importance than the content.

You might believe that I post this to stir up strife.. it's not the case. Your title gives opportunity to show something.

"I am proud to be one of Zane Hodges' godchildren"

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=pride&version1=50&searchtype=all&bookset=7

Prov 13:10 NKJV
By pride comes nothing but strife, But with the well-advised is wisdom.

I think you chose the words of the title well. It is this pride in Mr. Hodges and his teachings that makes so many blind to the plain teachings of Scripture.

Do you not wonder at all that so many of those who also believe that Grace truly is FREE are amazed and shocked that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another?

Kev

By Kevl, at Saturday, January 26, 2008 11:10:00 AM
Pink is just a dude...a guy, but I dont toss out all of his insights into Scripture.

I can say that I really appreciate Charles Ryrie though and have benifited from some of his insights. I guess you all sort of reluctantly consider him a free gracer. I am deeply concerned about Hodges but have gained some helpful knowledge from His insights. Spurgeon is a favorite of mine but I do not follow him as closely as Phil Johnson does. Throwing all your eggs into one basket often makes for a lopsided container and if you put them all on one side of the basket or container then it quite possibly may fall out of your hands and all of them crack and break open when you pull them out of the refrigrerator to quickly.

We are not robots. God never intended us to operate like robots. This is why I take delight in the Sovereignty of God and find some helpful insights from Pink, but he like hodges and Antonio seem to walk full circle around and talk themselves out of what they are laying a base for. It is an anomaly to me and even when challenged(Pink was challenged by the way in his day on the book Sovereignty of God) it seem to further galvanize the man to isolate and contend for his position and sucks everybody into a tractor beam to become one of darth vaders storm troopers. It always happens when we put all of our eggs in one basket.

All of these guys are fallible dudes with feet of clay. I marvel that so many of you insist that we must follow some of these men at all. Isnt this the very thing Jesus warned against and made plain saying that in this new covanent men will not be teaching us but that the Holy Spirit will?

As I said...I can gain insights from them...but thats about it.

Remember the 3 D's.

If you look at other Christians and Pastors and teachers you will be:

Dissapointed

If you look at yourself you will become:

Discouraged

If you Only Look To Christ you will be:

Delighted

By Only Look, at Saturday, January 26, 2008 3:20:00 PM
kev -

"I think you chose the words of the title well. It is this pride in Mr. Hodges and his teachings that makes so many blind to the plain teachings of Scripture."

Anyone who's ever met and interacted with Hodges knows that he is anything but prideful. He's a godly man, a good man, a humble man. I might disagree with some of his teachings but his character is above reproach. You'll never meet a more gracious servant of the Lord.

By Jon Lee, at Saturday, January 26, 2008 3:36:00 PM
First time stopping in...and I find it always striking that a person who calls themselves a Christian would accuse another believer of mental attitude sin.

I too have noticed Professor Hodges Christlikeness. In addition, his commentary on John's epistles were required reading for a Greek exegetical class. We were to translate and exegete all three of John's letters. The other texts required in addition to the Greek texts themselves were Wallace's grammar. It was in this class that I actually saw someone (Wallace) reading their theology into a Greek intermediate grammar.

I don't agree with everything that Professor Hodges has written and in this I thank and appreciate David's comments. He is being balanced in his view.

However, as for others I am not arrogant enough to condemn his writings or the man out of hand without a hearing. It is a convenient thing on a blog to disparage another believer and think you will get away with it. Here's why I have entered here...

Whenever I hear someone say something like,

"It is this pride in Mr. Hodges and his teachings that makes so many blind to the plain teachings of Scripture."

Interestingly no proof of the claim to sin can be backed up unless this person has omniscience in which case they must be God as it is one of His attributes. It is also a logical fallacy to not point out the problem, this is actually two fallacies - failure to state - and ad hominem.

And then, "...are amazed and shocked that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another?"

By saying this the person claims apostolic authority given to Paul to determine truth and judge the behavior of another believer. That is the same thing the Roman Catholic Church does.

Since the time of the apostles the truth has been corrupted by those who claim a long tradition of "The Gospel" in Church history. This is the same thing that happened to rabbinic Judaism of the time of the New Testament. Its too bad that this is occurring.

One other thing we can notice here, a verse pulled out of context and misapplied by someone who has no idea if the reason the person writing this post is prideful or not. What is the test? This is not a trivial matter.

Paul claimed Timothy and others as spiritual "children"; Zane has discipled many men and I am privileged position of serving with them and see the difference in peoples lives. From this example I have shared the gospel and discipled men (some who have come to faith from God using this broken vessel).
We all follow the example of the apostles.

I know a free grace theologian who is my friend and mentor and he made the point that most people who disagree with Hodges on different topics are usually proved wrong down the road from the scriptures themselves.

Theology is an ever evolving science, those who deny that any more new truth can be found while we are 2000 years removed from the events of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament is bordering on paranoia at best, and religious snobbery at worst.

If you or I make an accusation against a brother or sister out here where this medium has no authority, no elder (as in a church) to shepherd the only judge left of the words written will be the Lord Jesus Christ himself at the Judgement Seat.

I can't remain silent and let these kinds of comments go unchallenged. If you prefer to discuss in private please feel free to send me an email. I will respond with my home phone and will even pay for the call.

Jim Johnson
jim@freegracegospel.org
Intructor Rocky Mountain Bible College & Seminary
Member Free Grace Alliance
Member Society of Dispensational Theology

By Jim, at Saturday, January 26, 2008 4:51:00 PM
Jim and Jon,

I believe you have misread this phrase from Kev:
"It is this pride in Mr. Hodges and his teachings that makes so many blind to the plain teachings of Scripture."

Kev can certainly speak for himself, but I think the context of Kev's remarks indicate a different reading than what you have gathered. Of course Kev can correct me if I'm wrong, but you both seem to think that Kev is saying that he sees "pride in Mr. Hodges", as in, Hodges is prideful. I do not think that's what Kev intended.

IMO Kev is saying that people (e.g. Matthew) TAKE "pride in Mr. Hodges and his teachings". Kev indicated that he only read the title of this article, in which Matthew states that he is "proud to be one of Zane Hodges' godchildren". It seems to me that Kev is saying that it is this kind of pride that people take in Hodges and his teachings that concerns him, NOT that he thinks Hodges is prideful necessarily.

So you and others might want to hold off on slamming Kev for accusing Hodges of pride in case you misread Kev and that's not what he was saying.

By Rachel, at Saturday, January 26, 2008 6:41:00 PM
I think Rachel is correct.

Kevl was accusing me of pride not Hodges.

By Matthew Celestine, at Sunday, January 27, 2008 1:09:00 AM
God is the good Father, not the Godfather. Zane or Marlen Brando...I want to be only God's son. Don't you?

I don't believe in this god child stuff. It seemeth to be Roman and Italian in origin.

By Only Look, at Sunday, January 27, 2008 5:57:00 AM
BTW...he is God the Father, but not Mario's Godfather....thank goodness.

If I may...may I suggest that many who hail from Roman origin often have this temptation to seek another mediator to explain the Scriptures and the oracles of God to them and desire someone to look to because of the old flesh.

Will you consider that this temptation is possible for you Antonio because the old you hail from these origins?

By Only Look, at Sunday, January 27, 2008 6:00:00 AM
Brian, I only used that title because of Phil Johnson's description of Hodges as 'the godfather of Antinomianism.' His choice of words not mine.

By Matthew Celestine, at Sunday, January 27, 2008 6:45:00 AM
Kevl,
Are you familiar with Phil Johnson?

By Rose~, at Sunday, January 27, 2008 8:54:00 AM
Oh sorry...I havent been over there for a few weeks. It is too much of a circus for me at times. For some reason I enjoy this circus more:-)

I do read Steve Camp though and agree with some of his articles and his insights into the drift from truth that is occuring today and is being made manifest on this blog. It seems you guys are proving him right in areas. Kind of a "I told you so" thingy when I read his stuff. He is like an old prophet of God hammering away out of love for His Saviour.

By Only Look, at Sunday, January 27, 2008 5:55:00 PM
All,

While I appreciate the sentiment of the possibility mis characterizing the post from kevl, we will have to respectfully disagree. What I see in the statement "I think you chose the words of the title well. It is this pride in Mr. Hodges and his teachings that makes so many blind to the plain teachings of Scripture." is an accusation of pride from the posting of this article. I also take umbrage that Professor Hodges has been proved wrong as to His writings.

People have rushed to judgment in cyberspace on this idea of his teachings leading people astray without an ounce of credible biblical evidence.

If right thinking people do not challenge this type of character assassination without any accountability, they are complacent or worse. It is plain to me that someone has to. I don't say this lightly, nor do I confront a another Christian without thought and prayer. It sickens me to see what has become of Christendom especially on the internet.

Moderating a blog is a good thing, as the moderator can help someone see that their post is inflammatory or in some cases sinful.

If you would like to remove my comments I will understand. But until I talk to the person and understand why he said these things the English is plain to me.

Jim

By Jim, at Sunday, January 27, 2008 7:26:00 PM
Hi Jim,

I'm sorry to have offended you so. With some other issues taking over my weekend I had forgotten I posted to this thread. Seems now it has been hijacked and I wasn't around to stop that. For that I am very sorry Matthew.

I was saying that the title of the post is a short clear statement of what I see in people. They themselves have pride in Mr. Hodges and his teachings. This pride blinds people to clear and normal communication, and obviously Scriptures.

Jim, I've never spoken with you before (that I know of) but your extreme reaction to my post seems to give credence to my sentiments.

Blessings in the Lord,
Kevin

By Kevl, at Monday, January 28, 2008 2:10:00 AM
Rose,

No I don't think I've read anything of Phil Johnson. Not thinking of anything off the top of my head anyway.

Kev

By Kevl, at Monday, January 28, 2008 2:11:00 AM
Phil Johnson is John MacArthur's ghostwriter.

The reason I asked, Kevl is because when Phil Johnson refers to people as "antinomians", he is talking about non-Lordshippers. If you are a free-grace believer, you would also be labeled an "antonomian" and therefore would be in the same boat with Hodges on that one.

Have you ever read the book "Absolutely Free" by Zane Hodges? It is one of the best books I have ever read about the gospel.

I do disagree with some of the direction that Hodges has taken on a few points but I appreciate so much of what I have read from him. I suggest you read AF before you criticise him further, just so you have a well-rounded perspective of the man. All that has been criticised of him lately is just a fraction -very miniscule- of his work.

By Rose~, at Monday, January 28, 2008 8:28:00 AM
If it is a fraction concerning Hodges then it must be Antonio who has continued to refine and amplify a false seed. It only takes a small snowball to become large when it starts running downhill. What you represent here as a team blog has served to fan into flame this new and improved position from the one Paul wrote about almost 2000 years ago in 1 Corinthians 15.

A counterfiet bill is a counterfeit bill even if it seems small to some. I encourage some of you to stop trying to find a way to justify this.

At no point have I attacked Hodges or anyone elses character, nor have I noticed Kevl doing this.

By Only Look, at Monday, January 28, 2008 1:02:00 PM
Hey Rose,

Thanks for clearing up who Mr. Johnson is. Yes I'm sure that he would say I'm lawless. As you know I'm no fan of Mr. MacArthur's work in the area of the Gospel.

Mr. MacArthur has some good work, I'm told his new book on Truth is very good... yet I can not bring myself to indulge in it because we do not have fellowship in the Gospel. There is probably good stuff I can learn in the book. But at what cost? And to be less mellow dramatic (I got to use this word twice today!!) I've got so much to read on a daily basis that I really have to be choosy. I try to evaluate all the things I read, but I really don't have time to indulge in authors whom I know I don't have fellowship with.

Notice I used the term fellowship, not agreement. The Gospel is the minimum requirement for fellowship. I agree with lots of people who aren't saved about a lot of topics.. but I don't have time to read their stuff.

What I'm saying.. messily.. is that I won't pick up Mr. Hodges book. Not because I don't think it has value... I'm sure it does.. but because if I don't have fellowship with him in the Gospel then there is nothing else for he and I to talk about. Even if it's a one way conversation through his writing.

There are more than enough authors who I do have fellowship with that can instruct me in Grace. And whom I can disagree with about things like the Gifts of the Spirit.. or Pre-Trib or...

Kev

By Kevl, at Monday, January 28, 2008 2:51:00 PM
I agree that the MacArthur camp confuses the gospel Kevl. I did feel that Ashamed of the Gospel was a good read and how they traced Britains walk away from truth. MacArthur does have a bit of a Spurgeon flavor in Him, but I still think Spurgeon always offered the gospel up more freely at the end of His messages than MacArthur does. Still...no need to follow men.

"Come and drink" Jesus says to the hopeless sinner. He will not deny anyone who comes.

By Only Look, at Monday, January 28, 2008 7:34:00 PM
Just a word of encouragement to you Kevl. I think you hit the gospel right on target. I wish there were more out there standing firm and offering the gospel in all of its clarity and beauty. No need to curb or twist it in either fashion or direction in order to suit the pursuits of fellow blogmates and book deals.

By Only Look, at Monday, January 28, 2008 7:37:00 PM
Kevl,

Thank you for responding. I am not offended by you. If I were then it would be an issue of asking for forgiveness. Being sorry is much different than asking another Christian for forgiveness. Again, this is not required.

Also, my response is not an emotional reaction - I don't get emotional or take things personally, especially about things like this. As for hijacking the post, I don't believe this to be the case. In any discussion or debate it is not out of bounds to point out errors in someones facts or reasoning. It is this very thing that I am pointing out.

So I am correct in saying that the pride you wrote in your earlier post is sin and that you do believe that Professor Hodges views are error and therefore anyone who holds to them are in error. This is germain to the discussion since you have brought the subject up.

So you have said that you "see in people." If it is pride then as you say, I will ask a question to better understand what you mean by this word. Is this sinful pride?

Also, I take exception to your "sentiments" that my reaction is extreme. It is a common tactic on a blog called failure to engage. I hold no agnst against you or anyone else - but am merely calling it as I see it.

It will be interesting to me that you have made a statement about "pride" and about writings of two believers. I am asking you to support what you say with the text of scripture instead of opinion.

His forever,

Jim

By Jim, at Saturday, February 02, 2008 7:14:00 AM
Once again, I respectfully ask that people who are going to call into question the writings of others back up what they say with scripture.

Only Look said...

"If it is a fraction concerning Hodges then it must be Antonio who has continued to refine and amplify a false seed. It only takes a small snowball to become large when it starts running downhill. What you represent here as a team blog has served to fan into flame this new and improved position from the one Paul wrote about almost 2000 years ago in 1 Corinthians 15."

This statement is a fallacy called, argument by laziness or a nicer way to say it is argument by uninformed opinion. the arguer hasn't bothered to learn anything about the topic. He nevertheless has an opinion.

The citing of 1 Corinthians 15 hardly proves the case.

As to having "attacked" anyones character, this is not what the issue is about. When you start making accusations of false teaching "false seed", "counterfeit bill", the just thing to do is provide the evidence (not someone else's - be convinced in your own mind and share it).

Both Only Look and Kevl have done this.

Kevl said...

"...is that I won't pick up Mr. Hodges book. Not because I don't think it has value... I'm sure it does.. but because if I don't have fellowship with him in the Gospel then there is nothing else for he and I to talk about."

This, frankly is absurd. If your going to come on a blog and make the statements you have made without reading the book is again and argument by laziness.

As to only reading those who you "have fellowship" is also a logical problem. All human authors beyond the canonical writers were prone to error. This is why most of us who hold to FG teaching stick with the scriptures to avoid this trap.

The logical and reasonable thing to assume is that you are in error because you have not be taught by Christ Jesus or the prophets and apostles. Please help me here as I see the statements that you both are making and are in serious error both from a biblical standpoint and from a reason standpoint.

His,

Jim

By Jim, at Saturday, February 02, 2008 7:31:00 AM
Jim,

It's pride when a person makes the same comments over and over again, gets miffed when they are challenged by Scripture and then disappears only to later post the same error.

You said Kevl said...

"...is that I won't pick up Mr. Hodges book. Not because I don't think it has value... I'm sure it does.. but because if I don't have fellowship with him in the Gospel then there is nothing else for he and I to talk about."

This, frankly is absurd. If your going to come on a blog and make the statements you have made without reading the book is again and argument by laziness.

You also said Also, my response is not an emotional reaction - I don't get emotional or take things personally, especially about things like this.

Forgive me if I question the validity of this statement.

I wasn't aware that this blog, and this blog post is about the book by Mr. Hodges. While I would agree that Mr. Hodges drives nearly ever word posted here either directly or indirectly, I do not believe I am showing any laziness by declining to read a book by someone who promotes a false gospel while I engage the promoters of that same false gospel. I believe I was clear my time is valuable and I will spend it reading authors who are closer to what I know to be the Truth. If I needed to read his book to engage here I would either not engage or read it. Since this blog is not about that book I do not need to read it.

You went on As to only reading those who you "have fellowship" is also a logical problem. All human authors beyond the canonical writers were prone to error. This is why most of us who hold to FG teaching stick with the scriptures to avoid this trap.

I believe you are too easily impressed. From what I see posted here, and at each of the blogs written most of this particular sect of the FG movement spends most of it's time in Mr. Hodges' writings. He is quoted or cited in most every post.

When Scripture is posted it is often abused with non-bibilical definitions and proof-texting. You may not wish to see this posted, but take a look at this blog alone... then scoot through the several which are linked.

I would ask if you would spend a day reading something by a Mormon author or something by someone who actually has fellowship in Christ... but I suspect that you believe Mormans actually do have fellowship with you. So I will ask, would you spend the day reading a satanist's book or a letter from the Apostle Paul?

I have made no logical error. I use discernment.

You went on...
The logical and reasonable thing to assume is that you are in error because you have not be taught by Christ Jesus or the prophets and apostles. Please help me here as I see the statements that you both are making and are in serious error both from a biblical standpoint and from a reason standpoint.

I have been taught by Christ Jesus, the Prophets and the Apostles.

If there is error in anything I have posted you must make me aware of it by more than a blanket statement.

Frankly, get the plank out of your eye posting about how "proud" you are to be someone's prodigy instead of humbly being thankful for the Savior Who died for our sins and rose again.

Here's your Scriptural rebuke.

1 Cor 1:10-17 NASB

10Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.

11For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you.

12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."

13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,

15so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.

16Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

Kev

By Kevl, at Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:59:00 PM
I should add that I do not read very many books about theology. The Bible truly is sufficient.

I read Brother Showers' books on Eschatology, and Mackintosh's stuff on Church order. And HA Ironside's book on Repentance was required reading because my mind had been dirtied by false doctrine about that.

Kev

By Kevl, at Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:02:00 PM
I was reading this discourse, and maybe I am overreacting or misunderstanding, but Kev, in your 1/28 comment are you claiming MacArthur and Hodges are un-saved? Not saying I agree or disagree with you, I am just asking.

By Missy, at Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:29:00 AM
Kevl,

Thank you for responding. Once again your evidence is unconvincing. And your rebuke is lacking is lacking as well. You made the point of not reading books but the ones that needed "because my mind had been dirtied by false doctrine about that." You have got to be kidding. I have read all of those books and I always compare them with scripture. In fact it is because of scripture that I reject Dr. Ironsides book on repentance. I hold CHM in high regard, but not next to the bible.

You speak of pride, and by doing so are placing yourself in the seat of judgement. And my comment about, "The logical and reasonable thing to assume is that you are in error because you have not be taught by Christ Jesus or the prophets and apostles."

Was a point to draw out a response, you have actually been taught by the prophets and apostles? And the Lord Jesus Himself? Wow, I could only be discipled my men in my church...

The response disturbs me in that you will not read anything but the bible, and that somehow your doctrine got "dirty." Please tell me how did that happen?

Your view is not wrong because it doesn’t measure up to my personal theology; it’s wrong because it fails to correspond
with the biblical text. (Incoherence really boils down to a failure to correspond to the text:
an incoherent view fails to correspond with the coherence of the biblical text.) My critique of
wrong views is done in those terms, not in terms of the debate you use to relate to the text.

That said, you have not proved your case once again, you define a false gospel but do not back it up with solid hermeneutic interpretation. Ripping scriptures from their context is not being an "approved workman."

Let me come at this from another direction, if I were to prove to you from the bible alone that Hodges position is correct, will you change your position?

If you will not be persuaded by a thoughtful and well reasoned hermeneutical evidence then there is no more dialog to be had.

Just as MacArthur has been proven as adding human works to salvation, so too those who accuse FG people of a false gospel do not make their case in the court of exegetical and hermeneutical evidence.

Jim Johnson
jim@freegracegospel.org
Professor Rocky Mountain Bible College & Seminary
Member Free Grace Alliance
Member Society of Dispensational Theology

By Jim, at Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:48:00 PM
Hello Jim,

You seem more than a little combative. I wonder if those who complain about Lou's being so complain about you.

I will attempt to make this quick :)

You said Once again your evidence is unconvincing. And your rebuke is lacking is lacking as well.

I'm not really sure I offered "evidence" but the rebuke I gave is solid, it's the Word of God and applies to those who say "I am of Paul" "I am of Hodges"

You said Was a point to draw out a response, you have actually been taught by the prophets and apostles? And the Lord Jesus Himself? Wow, I could only be discipled my men in my church...

Yes I have. I have inspired Scripture written by them, and I have the Spirit of God who leads me into all Truth. John 16:13

You asked The response disturbs me in that you will not read anything but the bible, and that somehow your doctrine got "dirty." Please tell me how did that happen?

I was coming out of Lordship training. I found this particular sect of Free Grace and in my reaction and rejection of the error that is Lordship Salvation I accepted what I was fed with little resistance. I depended on man not Scripture. That's how it happened. It was the likes of Hodges that I allowed to soil my thinking.

It was through godly discipleship of several godly men that I came to read Ironside's book.

You said That said, you have not proved your case once again, you define a false gospel but do not back it up with solid hermeneutic interpretation. Ripping scriptures from their context is not being an "approved workman."

Have I "defined" anything here? What false Gospel do I define Jim? It seems to me that you inject much into my writing that isn't there for the purpose of argument.

You are correct though, ripping Scripture from it's context is error. In that we are in full agreement.

You asked Let me come at this from another direction, if I were to prove to you from the bible alone that Hodges position is correct, will you change your position?

No matter how I answer this you will (I have little doubt) use the answer to continue combat. My testimony and track record (to sound like a politician) shows that I do submit to the Truth even when it means I have to recant what I have formerly declared.

Instead of saying "yes" or "no" how about you give it a try and "We'll see"

I warn you though I see the political ways you communicate and I am not persuaded by such arguments anymore.

You stated
If you will not be persuaded by a thoughtful and well reasoned hermeneutical evidence then there is no more dialog to be had.

This is evidence of the problem behind your arguments with me, and really your interpretation of Scripture. You have a fixed position that you think I have and are arguing against it. Do I even need to be here for you to carry on?

Kev

By Kevl, at Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:59:00 AM
Kev, did you read my question to you above?

By Missy, at Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:37:00 AM
Hi Missy,

Sorry no I had missed your question.

You asked I was reading this discourse, and maybe I am overreacting or misunderstanding, but Kev, in your 1/28 comment are you claiming MacArthur and Hodges are un-saved? Not saying I agree or disagree with you, I am just asking.

This is one of the few times when I can at least understand why you would consider I MIGHT have meant that. Because I said that the Gospel is the minimum requirement for fellowship.

I do not have time for another deep conversation but here is the answer.

No I was not saying that. I was saying I do not have fellowship with these two men.

1 John. Christians have fellowship with Christ first and through Him we have fellowship with each other. When a Christian is disorderly he/she breaks "fellowship" with God, not "relationship" they are still saved, they are simply out of orderly fellowship.

I do not know ether Mr. MacArthur or Mr. Hodges. I do not believe that either man's gospel is THE Gospel as defined by Scripture. I believe WHOLE HEARTEDLY in the amazing Grace of God I can not by any means deem a person unsaved, but I can treat one as such. (there is a difference)

Kev

By Kevl, at Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:49:00 AM
Kev,

Essentially, I hear you saying you do not have the power to deem (by which I take to mean "decide") that these men are saved or un-saved, but you are of the opinion that they most likely are not saved based on their false gospel, and treat them as such.

Would this be fair representation?

By Missy, at Thursday, February 07, 2008 11:06:00 AM
Missy,

You asked
Essentially, I hear you saying you do not have the power to deem (by which I take to mean "decide") that these men are saved or un-saved, but you are of the opinion that they most likely are not saved based on their false gospel, and treat them as such.

Would this be fair representation?

No.

Are you trying to see this in what I write?

I have not claimed they are unsaved. I do not know them. I do not know if they are saved. They may have believed the True Gospel at some point. I believe that John MacArthur is on record as having believed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ with no additions or subtractions.

Do you think they are saved?

Why are you pressing this?

It breaks my heart that anyone is not saved. But as far as this conversation goes they are either saved and disorderly preaching a false gospel or they are unsaved and preaching a false gospel.

Neither situation changes the fact that they preach a false gospel.

Kev

By Kevl, at Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:13:00 PM
Kev, I am one of those "undecided" voters. Your answer bears witness to your gospel and builds on impressions I have of your view. It is pertinent, and I appreciate you taking time to address it so I understand you clearly. Thank you.

By Missy, at Thursday, February 07, 2008 5:38:00 PM
Missy, thanks for the reply. :)

Kev

By Kevl, at Thursday, February 07, 2008 6:33:00 PM
Kev wrote,

"You seem more than a little combative. I wonder if those who complain about Lou's being so complain about you."

Unfortunately you misjudge my intent. You mistake emphatic emphasis for an emotion. I am not emotional or angry.

...and then continued, "I'm not really sure I offered 'evidence' but the rebuke I gave is solid, it's the Word of God and applies to those who say 'I am of Paul' 'I am of Hodges'"

Your now placing yourself in the position of an apostle to give a rebuke? This is sad as again your not supporting your statement on this blog.

Your statement next is very concerning, "Yes I have. I have inspired Scripture written by them, and I have the Spirit of God who leads me into all Truth. John 16:13"

So you deny that all you need is the bible and no human interaction with anyone who God has gifted as a teacher?

In your answer to my question about how you were "soiled," you stated, "I was coming out of Lordship training. I found this particular sect of Free Grace and in my reaction and rejection of the error that is Lordship Salvation I accepted what I was fed with little resistance. I depended on man not Scripture. That's how it happened. It was the likes of Hodges that I allowed to soil my thinking."

Your journey out of lordship salvation is commendable but not complete. How do you judge a particular interpretation of the scripture to be correct? What is your method? Do you use the orginal texts, etc. This is also asked in relation to your next statement, "Have I "defined" anything here? What false Gospel do I define Jim? It seems to me that you inject much into my writing that isn't there for the purpose of argument."

This is not an my argument, you have made a claim not backed up your position with any worthy argument from scripture (by the way "argument" is a theological term used to denote the outline of a biblical authors intent in writing.)

The next statement in your response is even more telling,
"No matter how I answer this you will (I have little doubt) use the answer to continue combat. My testimony and track record (to sound like a politician) shows that I do submit to the Truth even when it means I have to recant what I have formerly declared."

First, your idea that I will continue to combat you is mistaken, my response is biblical and logical. To date, you have not answered anything put to you which is indicative of those who accuse people like me of being false teachers with a false gospel. Again, your are not answering my response with anything but more rhetoric. Second, where did you declare your "track record" or doctrinal stance? Do you have a web site or document that I and others can see where your coming from. All of this would have been avoided if you had been willing to retract your statement about pride, but you continue to not support your position and continue to make offensive statements about people you do not even know.

It is also evident that your committing another fallacious tactic called needling. This is used in an attempt to make the other person angry, without trying to address the argument at hand. Sometimes this is a delaying tactic. I'm not sure which.

As for the accusation of a "political" argument, this again is another fallacy bordering on ad hominem. This is also an attempt at Tu Quoque, it is also how this exchange occured, you made a charge of wrongdoing is answered by a rationalization that others have sinned, or might have sinned.

In addition to this, your making an argument by emotive language, in which you have used emotionally loaded words to sway the blog audience's sentiments instead of their minds.

A perfect example of this is "I warn you though I see the political ways you communicate and I am not persuaded by such arguments anymore."

Your last statement does not engage the point of having to back up what you say with a hermeneutic argument that holds water,

"This is evidence of the problem behind your arguments with me, and really your interpretation of Scripture. You have a fixed position that you think I have and are arguing against it. Do I even need to be here for you to carry on?"

Again, same fallacies as above. In addition, you have committed a failure to state (again). If you make enough attacks, and ask enough questions, you may never have to actually define your own position on the topic. All you can produce is rhetoric and not a biblical answer. Even when you do provide a verse it is out of context and you are unwilling to see any other evidence.

And to answer your last question, do you have to be here for me to carry on...no, you don't. If your not going to produce what I have asked for the matter is concluded. Otherwise withdraw the statement you made at the first, or back it up with biblical evidence that is convincing.

By Jim, at Friday, February 08, 2008 8:42:00 PM
Jim,

I am really not interested in playing games or arguing what we each meant in each post...

Statements of yours such as Your now placing yourself in the position of an apostle to give a rebuke? This is sad as again your not supporting your statement on this blog.

and So you deny that all you need is the bible and no human interaction with anyone who God has gifted as a teacher?

Prove that you're not interested in speaking of the Scriptures but are interested in seeing if you can twist my statements to catch me up.

I'm not interested. If you have posted something of value below this junk I do not know, I have stopped reading at that point. If you can not engage decently with me then I'm not interested in engagement. If you do such abuse to my writing while you claim to be attempting to correct me why should I listen to you? If you can't handle conversation with honor, how could you possibly handle instruction so?

If you want to engage in conversation like you have here I believe that Mrs. Clinton can use a few more advisers.

Kev

By Kevl, at Sunday, February 10, 2008 10:42:00 AM
Missy, and all. I've posted an article about the Gospel at my blog explaining why I preach what I do and how.

http://onmywalk.blogspot.com/2008/02/of-late-i-and-some-of-my-close-brethren.html

http://tinyurl.com/24wy22 <- actual link.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/24wy22 <- preview for confidence.

Kev

By Kevl, at Sunday, February 10, 2008 2:46:00 PM