Converted this tape to an mp3 -- Zane Hodges on Interpretation

NOTE:

I just used a different server. For those of you who couldn't download previously, please try again. Right click the link and "Save as" to save the mp3 to your computer. Left click it to hear it streaming. Let me know if you need any more help.


Yo! Free Grace Theology folks!

Here is a message from Zane Hodges I just converted to mp3. Great stuff!


NT Interpretation pt1

NT Interpretation pt2

Two Quotations from Charlie Bing

I think that the current debate in Free Grace theology is causing the Checklist Evangelism side to become increasingly polarized in their understanding and position. I have argued before on this blog that there is no basis for assurance in objective Scriptural passages for the converts of Checklist evangelism, for there is (are) no passage(s) that precisely state the same things they are requiring the lost to do to have eternal life. But equally, the most beloved evangelistic verses taken from the Gospel of John are disappearing from their discussions at a very rapid rate. I have written a post arguing that Checklist Evangelism robs the Free Grace world of the single most fruitful passage in evangelism, John 3:16:

Are We Robbed of John 3:16? -- What does 'Believing in Jesus' Really Mean?

This is a timely article, one that, if you have not read it, you must, and if you have, please review again!

Much like those who believe in particular redemption and unconditional election are uncomfortable with John 3:16, so are those in Checklist Evangelism (CE). These CE advocates believe that Christ's message and promise of life, that had the authority of God the Father (and also being His very words), must be relegated solely to the 3 1/2 years that Jesus was on the earth; they only had a 3.5 year shelf life, and are considered operative only in a prior dispensation.

In light of their increasingly stronger convictions concerning the words of Christ in the Gospel of John, that John is merely giving a history of how people were born again in the earthly ministry of Christ, that Jesus' words are not for the lost in this age, and that the Gospel of John was not written with an evangelistic purpose, the Checklist Evangelists are distancing themselves from John 3:16 and the promise of Jesus Christ. This is a most tragic situation, but is the logical ends of their position.

John's Gospel really does not have any relevancy anymore. It seems that 1 Corinthians, a book written to born-again believers, is the end all in this discussion, trumping the words of Christ in the Gospel of John. This is ok for me that they do this, for they are in all reality painting and retreating themselves into a deep corner, one from which they will not easily be extricated. John 3:16, to them, does not explain for us how to have life in this dispensation so they are left to totally disregard it.

I, for one, will never abandon Christ and His words from the Gospel of John, for Jesus says that His words "are life" and have the authority of God the Father.

John 3:16: The same yesterday, today, and forever.

Oh, yeah. I got so preachy that I forgot to include the quotations I wanted to give from Charlie Bing:

#1) I believe that a person is saved when they believe in Jesus’ promise to give them eternal life.

#2) On the other hand, simple salvation means that a person can believe the promise of John 3:16 and be eternally saved.

See how far the Doctrinal Legalists have removed themselves from such articulations! They of, of course, do not want to be seen as "Promise-Only" advocates! I guarantee that Charlie Bing would have to deeply qualify these statements (where they weren't in their contexts) in order to now identify with them, or he would just altogether reject them.

I am a proud advocate of a "Promise-Only" soteriology. You see, Jesus promises eternal life to those who believe in Him. I believe in Him, entrusting my eternal destiny into His hands according to His promise, therefore I am the beneficiary of it. Christ, according to His promise, is my sure and secure hope. Christ, according to His promise, has given unto me eternal life.

Do you want to be sure you have eternal life?

Take Jesus at His word and believe in Him. No one has ever put their trust in Him for eternal life and been rejected. He ever lives to make good on His promise. You can take that to the bank.

Your Free Grace Theology Blog host,

Antonio G. da Rosa

Dialogue Continued

Dear guests of Free Grace Theology Blog:

This is your chance to continue dialoge about the discussion in Free Grace Theology pertaining to the content of saving faith. Dialogue was closed down on Fred Lybrand's blog. If any of you wish to continue over here, Jimmy, Rachel, Jan, Kevin, etc., please feel free to continue.

sincerely,

Antonio da Rosa
Your Free Grace Theology Blog host.

Faith Again Revisited

The following is a comment I made on Rose's Reasonings.

Trust and believe are synonyms. Trust denotes belief in a certain proposition having to do with the reliability of a thing or person. It is not some element beyond belief. For instance, if I were to say that I trust the babysitter I could equally state it in this propositional form:

I believe that the babysitter is qualified and reliable to take care of my children.

When we speak of trust, there may be some form of emotional element attached to it, but that is a secondary matter that comes by way of the results, not being part and parcel with the action of faith.

First off, we must realize that believing the facts concerning Christ's passion, Person, and resurrection is not salvific! It is when one believes in Jesus that he has eternal life. But what does it mean to believe in Jesus? I guess we could say that believing in Jesus is trust in Him. But in every realm where trust is mentioned, there is a context. I don't trust the babysitter to do my taxes nor do I trust the airline pilot to make a medical diagnosis.

I trust the babysitter for the well-being of my children on my night out.

I trust the pilot for my well-being during travel.

Every belief or trust can be denoted by propositional language, and apart from belief in a proposition, faith/trust does not occur. Each instance of faith/trust can be expressed in propositional form. Here are some sets illustrating my point:

A) I trust in the airline pilot.
A) I believe that the airline pilot is able and qualified to properly fly this aircraft and to get me to my destination safely.

B) I trust in the babysitter.
B) I believe that the babysitter is able and qualified to care for my children and keep them safe when I am out for the evening.

C) I trust in Jesus (or equally, I believe in Jesus)
C) I believe what Jesus has promised He is able, willing, authorized, qualified, and desirous to perform.

The gospel message states that anyone who believes in Jesus has eternal life. The moment that one believes in Jesus (as in C above) he has everlasting life. Therefore, one knows if he has placed his reliance or trust in Jesus (in the sense of believing that Jesus is able, authoratative, qualified, reliable, desirous, etc.. to perform what He promised); and because he:

1) Knows he believed in Jesus
and
2) Jesus promises eternal life to the one who believes in Him

then

3) He knows he has everlasting life.

There is no "personal" act of trust beyond an act of faith. This is nonsense and unbiblical. There can be no case made to state that saving faith is a combination of belief + trust. Reliance is not an emotion and ethereal object. Reliance is faith in propositional truth.

For instance, Let's say I have an infant who has never been babysat before: after several weeks of going through interviews and reading resumes and calling references, a single babysitter shines above the rest. Her credentials are impeccable, her experience is broad, her references all check out, etc... This convinced me that she is reliable. I now believe in that babysitter. But again, what do I mean about that? Let us break it down again.

Based upon the persuading evidence of her credentials, experience, references, etc., I now believe that this babysitter is able and qualified to care for my children! Faith (or belief or trust) in the babysitter was the passive result of becoming convinced/persuaded as to the reliability of the babysitter.

But something happens the moment I am convinced/persuaded of that proposition:

1) I feel relief!
2) This babysitter has impressed me and I can act upon my new found confidence and hire her
3) A relationship initiates which makes the act of trust (which is the passive result of becoming persuaded as to the reliability of the babysitter) seem to have a "personal" element to it, but in reality it is just a resultant effect.

But we must not confuse the act of trust/belief/faith (they are all synonyms!!) with the "feelings", emotions, subjective mindsets, and commitments that may result from the act of reliance upon another. When we do so we not only err, but we destroy objective assurance as well. How are we to determine how to guage this "personal" response to see if we have adequately met this extra step for salvation?

Really, this kind of theology is based upon a pop-psychology and not on logic and the bible. If you all have never read Gordon Clark's wonderful book "Faith and Saving Faith" you ought to give it a read to save yourselves from this kind of ethereality when discussing faith!

Notice this statement of Scripture:

Rom 4:20-22
20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore "it was accounted to him for righteousness."
NKJV

What is the "therefore" therefore in verse 22?

Because Abraham was fully convinced that what God had promised He was also able to perform, it was reckoned to him as righteousness!

Abraham was eternally saved because he was fully persuaded/convinced that what God promised He was able to perform.

Can you get this?

This is propositional material. This is the description of trust/faith/belief in God in propositional language. This is an act of reliance stated in propositional form. Abraham considered God able, reliable, authorized, desirous, and willing to perform His promise, therefore it was accounted unto him as righteousness.

Jesus says,

"Whoever believes in Me has everlasting life"

This is the promise of Jesus!

When I believe that what Jesus has promised He is able to perform, the result is that I have everlasting life! Receiving everlasting life is a result of placing one's reliance upon Jesus. But again, I must drive home this point. How is that done!? It is by becoming fully persuaded/convinced of the reliablity of Jesus Christ. And again, this can be denoted in propositional language:

I believe that what Jesus promises He is able to perform, therefore as a result I have eternal life.

Lets not make it any more difficult than it really is.

The gospel message is to be preached far and wide so that it may increasingly invite men and women to believe in Jesus for eternal life. The Holy Spirit uses the Word of God through the instrument of the evangelist to persuade and convince the lost to believe in Jesus for eternal life.

Let us not balk at this, belief is the passive result of being persuaded, and this notion is biblical.

Acts 28:23-24

23 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some were persuaded by the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved.
NKJV

Smells Like Duluth: The FGA Hermetically Seals the Gospel

A Free Grace friend of mine has recently penned a timely article concerning the recent comments from the Free Grace Alliance. I refer all my guests to this brother's blog to read this masterpiece.

Smells Like Duluth: The FGA Hermetically Seals the Gospel

Also, sister Michele, whom I met for the first time at the recent Grace Evangelical Society National Conference has also written a piece worthy of your attention concerning the same FGA statement.

Comments on FGA disassociation from GES

Please give these articles thorough reads and encourage the others with a comment and your prayers. This is a time where Free Grace Theology most definitely needs your prayers.

I appreciate all you who read here and I look forward to years of growing with you. I have been accused of many things before, some true, some not. But my heart is for Jesus, His grace, His message, and His purposes in the world.

Today is Good Friday, the day that the Lord Jesus Christ took upon Himself my sins, from the day of my birth until the day of my death, and equally for yours! I am not a perfect man, nor will I ever stand before you as such until the Lord comes. This debate between Free Grace fellows has been taxing and difficult for me and others to bear. I have, and will continue to, make mistakes that testify to my frailty, humanity, and sin nature. I thank my God that I have you all here to love me in spite of my flaws. I appreciate all of your encouragement, and I moreso appreciate your forgiveness.

Satan wishes to suppress our message and divide us. Whatever the future brings, let us be men and women of grace and stand united against a world in opposition to the grace that was brought to us through the merits of the death of Jesus Christ. Sisters and brothers, follow my example of humbly seeking forgiveness, endeavoring for peace and truth, and keeping our eyes fixed upon Jesus, who died to pay the penalty for our sins, and rose again victorious over death on the third day.

I am a flawed Free Grace theology host. Yet the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses men from all sin as I seek to walk in the light as He is in the light. Today, on Good Friday, I wish you all to enjoy the benefits of our crucified Savior, to basque in His love, His grace, and His redemption.

with love and care,

Antonio da Rosa

J.B. Hixson Shoots his Movement in the Foot, Revealing Major Flaws

Dear Free Grace Theology Blog patrons,

A reader of Free Grace Theology Blog informed me that the latest Chafer Theological Seminary conference, held early this month, was available in mp3 on the web. Two of the plenary speakers especially interested me. First, there was George Meisinger, president of Chafer, who presented a paper on 1 Corinthians 15. I have not yet listened to this mp3, and still yet intend to do so. I was also able to get a Word document of the paper through Bob Wilkin. My friend Rene Lopez is doing two workshops at the upcoming GES conference, one of which is entitled, "The Use and Abuse of 1 Corinthians 15". I directed him to the mp3 and sent him the hardcopy. Rene informed me that he has already listened to the mp3 on his iPod while flying to Florida. I do look forward to his workshop.

The next speaker who interested me was Dr. J.B. Hixson, executive director of the Free Grace Alliance. He presented a paper which was essentially a chapter out of his exegetically flawed new book, Getting the Gospel Wrong. I believe that this, indeed, is an appropriate title for his book in that he significantly garbles the saving message. He read the paper for the conference (was over 20 pages long) and inserted his commentary where necessary. I listened to this mp3.

I haven't looked very critically at the paper or listened to his message a second time. But in the brief encounter that I have had with his paper and message, I have found that J.B. Hixson shoots his movement in the foot, revealing major flaws with it.


The So-called "Technical Gospel"
A key ingredient in Fundamentalist Free Grace theology is the term "gospel". Greg Schliessman once wrote a paper describing the "technical usage" of the term "gospel". It is argued that "gospel" can be used technically to denote what one must believe to be saved. It must be noted, however, that not one passage in the whole of Scripture gives us a detailed definition of what this "technical gospel" is. This is a major flaw in Fundamentalist Free Grace theology (FFG from here on). If there is a "technical gospel" and you must believe it to be saved, it is a tragedy of inestimable proportion that not one passage defines it! Can we not assume that God, in giving us Scripture that is profitable to the human race, would provide for us the exact and incontestable requirements for one to have eternal life? For the FFG to proclaim that a "technical gospel" is required to be believed for eternal life, and then to find that such a "gospel" is not clearly defined for us in Scripture is a major flaw.

Furthermore, J.B. Hixson is taking away the foundation of the "technical gospel". His words are here instructive and true:

Even a casual survey of the usage of the term gospel (Gk. eujaggevlion)in Scripture reveals that it is not used in a technical sense.3 There is no inherent, technical meaning of gospel...

Although attempts have been made to demonstrate a technical meaning of the term, such efforts are an example of what D.A. Carson calls the fallacy of false assumptions about technical meaning.4 “In this fallacy, an interpreter falsely assumes that a word always or nearly always has a certain technical meaning—a meaning usually derived either from a subset of the evidence or from the interpreter’s personal systematic theology.”5...

A survey of the New Testament usage helps clarify the various nuances of the word and one quickly concludes that the term gospel is not a technical term.

After stating this, he then affirms that the word "gospel" is used in this sense. This is a bit of double-speak. First he says that "Scripture reveals that ["gospel"] is not used in a technical sense." But later he says, "the term [gospel] in fact is used sometimes in this [technical] sense". First we must note that he is contradicting himself. "Gospel" is either used in a technical sense or it is not. Furthermore, he affirms that which he does not prove by proper hermeneutical practice and exegesis. To substantiate his claim that "gospel" is used technically to denote what one believes to be saved he gives 13 proof texts, and a few sentences on one of the proof texts. And he did this at a conference on hermeneutics!

J.B.'s study he provided in his paper to show that the term "gospel" is not used in a technical sense was sufficient to raise red flags when viewing the evidence for the "technical gospel" usage in the New Testament. What I am saying is that he did an adequate (but by no means exhaustive) study to show that the term "gospel" covers a broad spectrum of truth. Why would we assume that these 13 passages in some way use the terms "preach the gospel" and "gospel" in a "technical" sense, in a way different than the other 117 usages of them? J.B. Hixson asserts what he does not prove by exegetical considerations. His study on the term "gospel," which shows that the "gospel" is broad, for all intents and purposes shoots his movement in the foot. It provides a study that calls into question the bald assertion that "gospel" has a technical sense used in the Scriptures, denoting what one must believe to be saved. A final note that ought to disarm the FFG proponents is the fact that the term "gospel" is nowhere to be found in the only book in the canon written with an explicit evangelistic purpose, the Gospel of John.


"To Be[lieve] or Not to Be[lieve]"
Tom Stegall, in his Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel series, has affirmed the necessity of believing in the humanity of Christ:

I will seek to defend what I believe are the essential, defining elements of the Gospel which must be believed for one to receive eternal salvation in this age. I will summarize them for now as follows:

1) Jesus Christ is God (“Son of God” and “Lord”).
2) Jesus Christ is human (“Son of man”).
3) Jesus Christ died for (huper – i.e., in a substitutionary sense) our sins.
4) Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead.
5) Salvation is by God’s grace, apart from works, through faith in Jesus Christ and His work alone. [emphasis mine]

Number 2 above states that one must believe that "Jesus Christ is human" in order that one may "receive eternal salvation in this age." But J.B. Hixson does not agree! Here is J.B.'s opinion on the matter:

An evangelistic discussion also might emphasize any one of various non-negotiable truths such as the Trinity, inerrancy, full humanity of Christ, or the hypostatic union of Christ. But one does not have to affirm explicitly these truths in order to receive eternal life. [emphasis mine]

Are we now to expect a series of articles penned by Tom Stegall titled, "The Tragedy of the Humanityless Gospel" in which he condemns J.B. Hixson as preaching a false, non-saving gospel? Wouldn't Tom Stegall be inconsistent and hypocritical if he did not write such a series of articles?

I mean look! The condition(s) of receiving eternal salvation are of great importance. If the lost are not specifically told that they must believe in the humanity of Jesus, and this is indeed a requirement for eternal life, then the evangelist has preached a false gospel, and the lost may have a false assurance of salvation! Would not docetists, Hindus, and JW's (only to name a few) need to be instructed in the proper Christology that affirms the humanity and physical corporeality of Jesus in order that they might be saved? To neglect to preach that a man must believe that Jesus is human when if in fact it is required of him to do so as a mandate from God is to preach a false gospel!

Leaving the realm of objectivity
Whenever one leaves the objective material of the Gospel of John, which explicitly states its evangelistic purpose, the truth of the whole bible becomes fair game in the quest for the content of saving faith. J.B. Hixson has stated that his checklist in evangelism was derived at by bible "synthesis", but he has failed to apprise us of the objective hermeneutical process by which he regards one truth essential to be believed for eternal life and another to be non-essential. This is a major flaw in FFG theology! There can never be the certainty of a "Thus saith the Lord" in the evangelism or soteriology of FFG. The evangelist himself becomes the final arbiter of the exact requirements for eternal life. His final checklist is a product of his tradition and subjective "synthesis" criteria. The result is that the FFG person becomes the authority: "Thus saith the evangelist!"

We must state here that J.B. Hixson and Tom Stegall cannot both be preaching the "True Gospel"! They both require different conditions for eternal life. Either one is right and the other wrong, or they are both wrong.

They cannot both be the gospel! One or both of them is a false gospel and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel!

J.B. Hixson has shot his movement in the foot by revealing this major flaw: when you leave the objective pronouncement of Christ and the Father in the Gospel of John, the only book in the canon written with an evangelistic purpose, the sky is the limit on the content of saving faith.


To err is human, but to forgive is to be "something more than just a mere man".
During the course of J.B. Hixson's session at the Chafer conference he addressed the features of his checklist for eternal salvation. We must note again that his list is different than Tom Stegall, or others I have encountered, for that matter. One of the items in his opinion on the content of saving faith, derived from tradition and a subjective "synthesis" of the bible, is that one must believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

Although Hixson goes into great length to show that Jesus is God in his paper and presentation, he stops short of requiring that one believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved. This position that he takes essentially shoots his movement in the foot and turns our attention to yet another major flaw. The last flaw we looked at is the subjective nature of determining one's checklist for evangelism when one leaves the objective words of Jesus Christ and the Father in the Gospel of John behind. The flaw now being discussed describes the ambiguity present in FFG theology.

Here is Hixson describing for us what one actually believes as a minimum (in terms of content) when he believes that Jesus is the Son of God (transcribed from the presentation of his paper):

[One must believe that] [t]here is something unique about Him. I suggest in the paper that of course we would not say that a person today has to have a fully developed Christology and understand all of the intricacies of the doctrine of the deity of Christ. They may not have even heard of the term "deity". But there is a sense in which they have to understand that the Jesus who is saving them is the Son of God: He's transcendent, He's something more than just a mere man, or just a mortal hero.

Tom Stegall and others in Fundamentalist Free Grace circles require that the lost actually believe that Jesus is God, fully equal to the Father. But J.B. Hixson has clearly fallen short of requiring the lost to believe in the "deity" of Christ. I believe that this is a major concession on His part.

Let us look at his language. To believe that Jesus is in "a sense" the Son of God one must understand that He is "transcendent" and that He is "something more than just a mere man".

Boy does this open up a bunch of cans of worms, ladies and gentlemen!

1) First we must note that he and Stegall are providing us with two different requirements. Stegall asserts that one must believe in the deity of Christ, that He "is God" equal to the Father, but Hixson simply states that one must believe that Jesus is the Son of God with the minimum sense that He is "transcendent" and "more than just a mere man". Here again we are met with the logical conclusion that they both cannot be preaching the same or true "Technical Gospel". Either one of them or both of them is preaching a false gospel and is under the curse of God.

Now, are we to be expecting Tom Stegall to produce yet another series of articles titled "The Tragedy of the Deityless Gospel"? Again, it would be hypocritical and inconsistent of Tom Stegall to not accuse J.B. Hixson of preaching a false gospel! J.B. Hixson does not require the lost to believe in the "deity" of Christ!

2) Hixson's position illustrates for us the ambiguity that is inherently resident in FFG theology. Terms like "sense" and "more than" lack an objective quality to them that can both stifle evangelism and prevent one from assurance.

Question: How does Hixson come to this minimum description and definition of the term "Son of God"? How does he know that his required minimum content is enough?

What if more than believing that Jesus is transcendent and more than just a mere man is required for eternal life as Tom Stegall has stated? Wouldn't Hixson be preaching a false gospel?

Could not later the lost question himself if he believed that Jesus was the Son of God adequately enough? Surely this is a great possibility!

3) He opens the door to the same criticism that has been leveled against Consistent Free Grace Theology (the theology the GES prescribes to). If one must understand that Jesus is the Son of God in a sense that He is transcendent or someone more than just a mere human, then the J.W.'s and Mormons (only to name a few cults) would have this part of J.B. Hixson's doctrinal checklist for salvation covered. Is not Jesus the archangel Michael in J.W. theology, a transcendent being who is more than a mere man? Of course! Is not Jesus a God in Mormon theology, a transcendent being who is more than a mere man? Of course! I fully expect that J.B. Hixson's email will be rife with cries of "Heresy!" from our Separationist friends.

More thoughts from J.B. Hixson from his paper itself:

In first century Jewish thought... [a] well-developed understanding of the doctrine of the deity Christ, and even more so the Trinity, was lacking. These doctrines did not take shape fully until later in Church history. Yet saving faith involved the rudimentary affirmation of Christ as uniquely divine or transcendent on some level... Jesus’ death and resurrection, more than anything else, sets Him apart as unique among men. Ultimately, His death and resurrection attest to His deity even if early believers did not entirely make this connection.

There is, in Hixson's theology, a necessity to have only a "rudimentary affirmation" of Christ as being divine or transcendent "on some level". Hixson has again shot his movement in the foot! It should be clear to the reader that J.B. Hixson does not require the lost to believe in the deity of Christ, that Jesus is God, equal to the Father.

Whereas Stegall's affirmation that one must believe that Jesus is God, equal to the Father, requires that one have some understanding in the trinity and hypostatic union (things that don't actually make his list, but are there by default), Hixson does not clearly articulate nor enumerate for us what one must exactly believe about Jesus being the Son of God. The methods by which these two men have devised their checklists for eternal life are shown to be greatly flawed by their complexities and ambiguities.

Hixson states that one must believe that Jesus is divine. Here are the definitions I found in an online dictionary for "divine":

1: of or pertaining to a god
2: godlike
3: heavenly; celestial
4: of superhuman or surpassing excellence

Such an understanding may potentially include everyone who could be persuaded that Jesus guarantees one's eternal destiny by faith. Who else but someone divine in some sense can guarantee one's eternal destiny!?


Conclusion
It has been aptly shown that when men and women leave the objective pronouncements of Jesus Christ and the Father as found in the Gospel of John for their traditions and subjective "synthesis" they fall into major error. If you ask 10 Fundamentalist Free Grace people what exactly must one do to have eternal life, you will get 11 different answers.

This short treatise only described a small few of the major flaws in the Fundamentalist Free Grace theology of the Executive Director of the Free Grace Alliance. Many more flaws reside there. I am afraid that Hixson has garbled the message of Christ.

Readers of Free Grace Theology Blog: God has not left us to wonder what is exactly required of us for eternal life, nor has he left us to figure out how to properly synthesize the bible in scavenger like fashion, hunting every truth that He requires must be adhered to in order to be qualified for eternal life. God has given us His love letter, the Gospel of John, specifically written that one know that he has eternal life. The Father's command is eternal life. The pronouncement of Jesus:

Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life! (John 6:47)

Grace and peace to you, my blog patrons.

Antonio da Rosa
Lakeside, CA

How to Lead People to Christ, Installment #2: The 'Deserted Island' Scenario

The theological world is often a reactionary climate
Men and women who at all consider themselves theologically savvy have various doctrines that they attach a lot of emotion to. For instance, the Calvinist’s passion is for God’s sovereignty, monergism, and the decrees. When statements are made that seem to play down the importance of these dogmas the dedicated Calvinist will often go up in arms. To be fair, Free Grace Theology advocates have been quite combative against apparent compromises with the absolute freeness of everlasting life.

We ought not to be surprised with these things. Cults and “isms” have so twisted the Scriptures as to prevent men and women from receiving the Gift of God. Truth is unquestionably of great importance! Men and women have selflessly given their lives for its proclamation. Ignorance is wide spread. Truth is a commodity that Christians have appropriately put a high premium on.

Yet in all of our doings have we overstepped our bounds?

2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.

No matter what the hour or circumstance, the people of God ought to be ready to preach the word. Furthermore, because there are those who “will not endure sound doctrine” (2 Tim 4:3) we must convince, rebuke and exhort. Yet notice, there is a mode for us described to which we must adhere when we perform these duties: our ministry must be characterized by longsuffering and teaching.

1 Peter 3:15-16
… sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed.

There is a rightful place for apologetics in Christianity. Many are the enemies of God, and our voices ought to be heard giving a defense of our most certain hope. The first step of such a ministry is to devote our every affection to God as our Lord, for this will necessarily set our minds and hearts into the subjective state the Holy Spirit can use to do the will of the Father. As well, it will institute a paradigm shift from working through our flesh and for our own inadequate motivations to the mindset of a humble servitude, sincerely seeking to bring glory to our Master by faithfully discharging our commissions. Finally, our divine activites (lo, ought not our every activity be of divine origin?) must be done “with meekness and fear,” for only by so doing will our “conduct in Christ” be “good”!

Through Jesus Christ came “grace and truth” (Jn 1:17). These are never to be separated. I believe in our zealousness for those doctrines that animate us we often divorce grace from truth. We have become impatient in our ministries, casting aside the necessity of understanding, and taking the easy routes of ad hominem, mischaracterization, and open disdain and hostility.

In the place of teaching, we have resorted to character assassination, scare tactics and fear mongering, and have succumbed to the appetites and desires of our flesh becoming puffed up in our pride.

Instead of sanctifying God in our hearts, we have hardened our hearts and seared our consciences, putting ourselves on the throne, and acting upon our own carnal motivations. In our pride, we have substituted “meekness and fear” for a desire to humble others, poison the well, and keep people from an open-minded and biblical examination of other positions.

Men and women, we have every reason to be ashamed of our dealings, and to repent of our pride. We must pledge allegiance to Christ afresh, seeking an understanding of those positions we find offensive before attempting to correct them. How can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch (Lk 6:39)? Enough of the reactionary mindset! We all give lip service to the grace of God, but do we employ it in our interactions with other believers?

And with this introduction, we now move to next installment of Zane Hodges’ seminal message entitled, “How to Lead People to Christ”.

So this afternoon: The Content of Our Message.

Let me begin with a strange scenario. Try to imagine an unsaved person marooned on a tiny uninhabited island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. He has never heard about Christianity in his entire life. One day a wave washes up a fragment of paper onto the beach. It is wet but still partly readable. On that paper are the words found in John 6:43-47, but the only readable part of the paper are these: "Jesus therefore answered and said to them," that’s in verse 43 and "Most assuredly I say to you, He who believes in Me has everlasting life" and that’s verse 47.

Now suppose that our unsaved man somehow becomes convinced that this person called Jesus can guarantee his eternal future since He promises everlasting life. In other words, he believes Jesus' words in John 6:47. Is he saved? I suspect that there are even some Grace people who would say that this man is not saved because he doesn't know enough. For example, he doesn't know that Jesus died for his sins on the Cross, and rose again the third day. Needless to say there is a lot more that he doesn't know either, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ, or the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. But my question is this. Why is he not saved if he believes the promise of Jesus' words?

Let me also begin my commentary with a strange scenario: Jesus Christ came down bodily to earth from heaven and spoke to a man on the street saying, “Assuredly, I say to you, if you believe in Me, you have eternal life”. Somehow this man becomes convinced that this Jesus guarantees his eternal destiny and well-being. In other words, he biblically believes in Jesus. Why would he not be saved?

As a proponent of Free Grace Theology, I believe that eternal life is the Gift of God. It is not a barter between man and God, nor is it a two way transaction, nor are there required preconditions attached. A gift, legitimately spoken of, does not require anything of the recipient but its reception.


The Time-Share Industry and ‘Free’ Gifts
My sister used to work in Cabo San Lucas, Baja California, Mexico, selling time-share. She still has friends in this industry. When she was up a few months ago, she gave me a brochure that offered me a 'free' gift: an all included 4-night stay in a hotel in Cabo San Lucas. But there were catches. I had to be of a certain annual income, and I had to submit to a multi-hour meeting pitching the sales of time-share in Cabo San Lucas.

Was the vacation offered a genuine free gift? I do not believe so. There is a type of barter and two-way transaction going on here, as well as a required pre-condition. In exchange for a person’s time and attention at a multi-hour sales pitch meeting, he is given a 4-night vacation. Furthermore, in order to even be eligible for this exchange, one has to meet the condition of being at a certain level of affluence; his annual income must be at the predetermined amount.

It is my contention that well meaning traditional Free Grace theology people would be inconsistent if they did not consider this vacation a genuine free gift. Why? This scenario illustrates their doctrine of soteriology, in which they claim to be adherents of a free grace. But is their doctrine truly free grace?

One is not able to simply receive the free gift of eternal life in traditional Free Grace theology. There are preconditions to be met, which sets up a two-way transaction and barter for eternal life. In the following table we see the barter between God and man:

Man’s Exchange

God’s Exchange

1. Strict Adherence to a Number of Orthodox Doctrines   a) The Deity of Christ (along with subpoints)   b) The Substitutionary Death of Christ for Sins (along with subpoints)   c) The Bodily Resurrection of Christ (along with subpoints)   d) The Humanity of Christ (along with subpoints)   e) [Apparent Contradiction] Salvation is by Grace Alone in Jesus Christ Alone 2. Must Not Hold to Any Fatal Unorthodox Doctrines   a) A Subjective Range 3. Must Not Deny the Essential Orthodox Doctrines   a) A Subjective Range

If man’s conditions and items necessary for exchange are submitted and in order God will perform His end of the transaction: Give Eternal Life

Just like the time-share companies, traditional Free Grace people require more to appropriating eternal life than simply receiving a free gift. This is not Free Grace Theology! Like the precondition of the time-share industry (being at a certain income level) which qualifies one for a vacation, the traditional Free Grace people have their preconditions, requiring one to be a type of orthodox fundamentalist before they are qualified for eternal life. Unless one be at some subjective level of orthodoxy (to be determined by the traditional evangelist, as you ask 10 of them what are the specific requirements and you get 11 different answers), he is no candidate for salvation.

It is as if the Scriptures do not say anymore, "And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely" (Rev 22:17), but, "And let him who is orthodox come. Whoever meets these preconditions of orthodoxy, let him trade this allegiance for the water of life."

Let us make this point clearly:

The legitimate offer of a free gift comes with no other requirement but to simply receive it. This is essentially what free grace is! The conditions placed upon the lost by well-meaning, but erroneous, traditional Free Grace people are unnecessary caveats, provisos, and codicils in the saving transaction. The requirement of these things may indeed frustrate God's grace, and preclude people from eternal salvation (not to mention assurance!).


The Message of Zane’s Illustration
The purpose of the so-called ‘Deserted Island Scenario’ was to forcefully show the absolutely free grace of God. Now that the issue of sin has been judicially dealt with on the cross, thus removing the barrier between God and man, God freely offers everlasting life to all who will receive it by simply believing in His Son. As has been argued before by me, soteriologically believing in Jesus, in context in the bible, is entrusting one’s eternal well-being to Jesus, being convinced of the veracity of the promise and guarantee of Jesus Christ. The man in the scenario did this! He did all that was necessary to possess a free gift: he received it. To be required to do anything more than this would be to downplay and frustrate the sufficiency of the Cross of Christ. Remember, “Jesus Paid it All!” There remains nothing more for the sinner to do but to receive the benefit of Christ’s death by trusting in Him for eternal life.

Issues Dealing with Identity
Such a scenario as the one depicted for us by Zane Hodges legitimately leads us to questions about identity. These have been addressed by me in several articles, two of being which:

Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?
The Right Thing – The Right Person

There is yet one more area of discussion to be had in order to make my position balanced. If anyone starts with another historical or fictional person in mind, and then attributes characteristics of the bona-fide Jesus Christ of Nazareth to him, then they have not placed their faith in the Jesus of Nazareth.

For instance, if one attributes to Napoleon the authority to guarantee one’s eternal destiny by faith in him alone, he obviously has not believed in Jesus. Or if someone starts with a fictional character in mind, say, Sinbad, and attributes to him the authority to guarantee one’s eternal destiny by faith in him alone, he has not believed in Jesus.

But, I must equally stress, that if one identifies Jesus of Nazareth by the Bible, and places his faith in Him for eternal life, he has received the free grace of God, eternal life, even in spite of misconceptions that he may have about Him.

I am sure that in response to this, I may be subjected to a plethora of hypothetical scenarios and asked to determine if one is saved or not. Let it be said here, that in many of the cases that could be produced, only God would be able to sort through the mish-mash. He alone is omniscient and able to certainly determine when and if another has received His gift by faith.


Conclusion
In the question and answer portion of this message, Zane was asked many questions dealing with this scenario. His answers were clarifications for the benefit of the audience. These Q&A’s will be reproduced here. In them, he touches on hypotheticals and some of his methods in dealing with the lost. Stay tuned!

Any discussions concerning this scenario and this post are welcomed here in the comment thread.

Your Free Grace Theology Host,

Antonio da Rosa