Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior

Dear Readers of Free Grace Theology blog,

Over the months I have been writing concerning consistent Free Grace Theology as pertaining to the invitation in our evangelism. During this time I have met many new people, two of which are Jonathan Perreault and Liam Moran (I instictively, for some reason, wanted to type Neeson, lol). For the most part we have enjoyed cordial communications concerning the topic at hand.

Many people are aware of two articles done by Zane Hodges called "How to Lead People to Christ" Pts 1 & 2. However, many don't know that these journal articles are condensed versions of two plenary sessions that Zane did at the GES National Conference in 2000. The audio for these sessions is a little under 2 hours; the papers being able to be read in under 15 minutes apeice.

In any communicative endeavor, one desires to be understood. Furthermore, in any discussion, one hopes to be fairly represented. It is the case that as I have read the treatments of the position I hold to, I find many disappointments. Misconceptions, liberty with statements taken out of context, and a fundamental deficiency in understanding both the driving convictions and emphasis of consistent Free Grace theology fill the pages of those wishing to show it to be heresy.

Jonathan Perreault had decided to listen to the audio of Zane Hodges, upon my encouragement, and write something in response. The following link is to a paper that he wrote entitled, "Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior". It was with his desire to understand more fully the position I hold to and defend the position he is persuaded of that he penned this treatise.

Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior by Jonathan D. Perreault

I have no reason to question the sincerity of Jonathan Perreault, nor would I want to, or have any grounds to do so. He is seeking to defend the tenets of biblical Christianity as he is persuaded of them. For this I applaud and commend him. You will be the judge if he has convincingly done so.

I have read his paper twice, even going so far as printing the whole thing up and marking all the margins with my comments. I have submitted it to you for your consideration.

As with any testimony it is imperative for us to read with a critical mind. Does his arguments stand up? Do his conclusions follow his arguments? I am deeply persuaded that this paper is flawed and here are some of the general comments I have given about it:

Anytime you ask a Traditional FGer for biblical support of their position you get journal articles, dissertations, complex arguments, machine-gun apologetics (rapid-fire proof texting) -- but no simple biblical proof. The reception of eternal life is the milk of the Word! It doesn't take a theological degree to ascertain from the scriptures what one must do to have life! It doesn't take the theological astuteness of a Calvin or Luther. The answer is clear: one must simply believe in Jesus and he will both have everlasting life and certain assurance of its possession. It should not take a dissertation in order to tell someone what one must do to have eternal life and prove it to them.

Jonathan Perreault's eighteen page argument states that the Gospel of John, in the end, modifies the doctrine of saving faith that John goes into great detail expounding for his readers in the first 12 chapters of his book. The arguments were confusing and the conclusions were simply non-sequitor. This eighteen page article failed to do what John could have done in a sentence or two: clearly state that the content of saving faith (that he gave elaborate testimony to in his 1st 12 chapters [13-17 being the Upper Room Discourse]) had changed, precisely defining for us the new content.

In reading this treatise I have found that a response would not be the best use of my time. The article, along with Tom Stegall's articles, would take too much of my time to correct. I just don't have that kind of time. I find the thesis of the paper insupportable.

The conclusion of the paper does not follow the arguments or data. That is a huge thing! In college, I took two logic courses and a critical thinking course. On every page their were assertions being made that the arguments did not prove. The insistence that the death and resurrection of Christ are now additions to what it means to "believe in" Him does not necessarily follow the arguements, even if I were to stipulate the correctness of them (for the sake of argument).

The conclusions just do not follow the arguments. Furthermore, the arguments supporting the conclusion have many holes which I found, showing a lack of exegetical care and deductive logic; non sequitors plague the paper.

In the conclusion section of the paper, Jonathan quoted Merril Tenney:

"the signs are the basis of belief; the person of Christ is the object of faith, and eternal life is the result of belief"

I basically agree with his assessment as stated.

The signs are the basis of faith. They are the authenticating proofs that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, guaranteeing eternal life to all who simply believe in Him. Belief in the signs don't save. It is belief in Jesus that does. The signs are what persuade us that faith alone in Christ alone receives everlasting life. No one will believe in Jesus unless persuaded by evidence. The signs are one front of evidence that we use in our evangelism to bring someone to faith in Jesus.

The reasoning from this paper's arguments does not provide a necessary certitude of its conclusion. I fully convinced that the Refined Free Grace position better, more simply, and with greater clarity accounts for all the available data in the gospel of John. RFG is proven easier and its arguments more compelling.

Jonathan's eighteen page paper failed to do what John could have done in a mere sentence or two: modify the understanding of saving faith that he went into great detail expounding for us in the first twelve chapters of His treatise, in other words, what it means to "believe in" Him. His eighteen page paper failed to do what John could have done in a mere sentence or two: qualify, modify, or change what it means to soterically believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (the faith bringing everlasting life) which he had already defined for us in the first 12 chapters of His gospel.

By all means, read Jonathan's paper. But do so thinking about his arguments critically. Is his evidence and arguments sound? Does his conclusions certainly follow his arguments?

Are you comfortable using John 3:16?

Unashamed of Grace:
Are you comfortable using John 3:16?

My Meeting with Charlie Bing and J.B. Hixson

Dear readers of Free Grace Theology Blog,

Sorry for the delay in writing. There has been much going on in my life and I have been a bit burned out in blogging. I have been reading two books which I highly recommend: In the Arena of Faith by Erich Sauer and Firstborn Sons: Their Rights and Risks by G.H. Lang. I think that I am going to read them twice in a row. I didn't make any highlights in either book the first time and I want to prepare them for reference. They are both essential books.

I also have been working on the title "Son of God" as it relates to Jesus the Christ of Nazareth. Much more work needs to be done, but I will put out something preliminary soon. It will be good to get all of the objections to my thesis so that I can work out the kinks, and hone and sharpen my position.

The thread Are We Robbed of John 3:16? -- What does 'Believing in Jesus' Really Mean? Is now up to 187 comments, by far the greatest number that I have had. I appreciate all of your input and insights. It is a very emotional topic for all.

It is my studied position that John 3:16 (and other Johannine evangelistic passages) cannot be legitimately used by Traditional Free Grace theology in their evangelism. Using the principles of plain, normal, and literal hermeneutics, we come to the conclusion that these communications were used by Jesus (and thus inscribed for us by the Apostle John) in a way foreign than what the TFG would use them. Jesus, whose words are spirit and life, who has the words of everlasting life, made these evangelistic utterances with specific import, simply relating to His audiences that whoever believes in Him shall never perish but receives, as an immediate and irrevocable possession, eternal life. To this condition the TFG add, in all reality, a number of complex theological requirements. Therefore the evangelistic passages of John, which we all know, and have been dearly loved over the centuries, are insufficient witnesses to Jesus' soteriological program. Furthermore, for the TFG to use them would be confusing, for what Jesus meant by "believe in Me" (which is a condition that once fulfilled is the intermediate agency through which one receives everlasting life) is not considered saving faith by them. The TFG either have to import foreign meaning into the texts themselves (inserting extrinsic data into the meaning of "belie[ing] in" Jesus), or supplement them, when, indeed, Jesus spoke them they were sufficient, self-contained, authoritative decrees providing for His audiences the unadulterated condition for receiving eternal life.

In the near future, I want to take a break from this internal debate. I would like to touch on some topics that Erich Sauer and G.H. Lang bring up in the books I read of them. In some of the writings I have read of Traditional Free Grace advocates, they disparage the idea of punitive aspects of the Bema. George Zeller and others have taken a strong stance against the writings of Zane Hodges and Joseph Dillow when it comes to some aspects of Bema Judgment. It would be good to flesh out some of these things, as I believe that the punitive aspects of the Judgment Seat of Christ are strong deterrents to carnal living.

Ok, the title of this post is My Meeting with Charlie Bing and J.B. Hixson So I will now get to writing about it. What I will be relating to you all I have permission from Charlie to express to you, my precious readers. I received an email from Charlie asking me to call him to discuss details of getting together. I talked to him and we agreed on lunch on Friday, November 16th, the last day of the Evangelical Theological Society meeting. I met him and J.B. Hixson at the Town and Country Hotel in Hotel Circle in San Diego. On the phone earlier I had offered my assistance in taking them to the airport and rental car place, so I picked them up in my new Chrysler minivan. Stephen R. Lewis was waiting with them. He wasn't leaving that day, but told me that he wanted to meet me in person. It was a treat to meet him!

Charlie and J.B. mentioned to me that they had heard alot about In and Out Burger and asked if there was one nearby. Well, I knew there was one within a couple of miles but didn't know exactly how to get there (I had eaten there a few times before, but got there from a different way). We drove leisurely around, talking about the ETS conference. Finally we found the best burger joint in the world! I ordered for all of us: 3x3's with whole grilled onions, animal style, fries and drinks. Later, Charlie emailed me saying that the burger was "definitely worth the plane ticket" :)

Of course I wanted to talk about the debate that has been going on in Free Grace theology. I took the opportunity to discuss my position, and was able to talk quite freely and openly. I provided arguments for Refined Free Grace Theology, and we discussed them. They were both very courteous and polite. In my opinion: I believe, in the end, that there was a greater understanding and appreciation for my position. The conversation was lively and friendly. I truly appreciated the opportunity to dialogue with these two great Christian gentlemen. I have to admit that I was quite excited to get to know them them, and greatly anticipated our meeting. I have been thinking about our discussion since that time; it has given me much food for thought and steered me into a couple of areas of study where my position can be stronger.

Charlie Bing and J.B. Hixson are genuine, sincere, balanced, thoughtful, deliberate, patient, highly intelligent, Christ-honoring and loving gentlemen. It was my pleasure and honor to meet with them. I hope that our relationships will grow.

Your Free Grace Theology host,

Antonio da Rosa
agdarosa@cox.net

Question and Answer with a TFG

Where is the Biblical evidence that people now receive eternal life differently than Peter, Andrew, Nathaniel, and John (in John 1:35-50); the disciples (John 2:11); Nicodemus (John 3:15-16); the Samaritans (John 4:39-42); people listening to Jesus (John 5:24; 6:35-40, 47); and Martha (John 11:25-27) which is clearly expounded for us in the only expressely evangelistic book in the Bible? In other words, where do we learn that the content of saving faith is different or changed?

Asked this question recently, a Traditionalist Free Gracer stated:

"...I am concerned that the standard of evidence being requested is too high. You are right, there is nothing that specifically says that the required content has changed. Frankly, there are many things that we believe that are not specifically stated in Scripture." http://blog.jessecamacho.com/free_grace/?p=32#comment-158

Needless to say, I find many things about this answer both telling and troubling at the same time! Why are the TFG's so up in arms with so little actual Biblical support? This person has admitted that there is not a single, specific biblical mandate for the modification of the content of saving faith. Furthermore, the door is opened to tradition by stating that there are many deep convictions that Christians hold that are not stated specifically in Scripture. I can't think of any. Is the Trinity an example? Well the word itself is not used, but cannot we prove from the bible, using specific and clear verses that:

1) God is one
2) Jesus is God
3) The Father is God
4) The Holy Spirit is God
5) These 3 Persons are distinguished from each other

Aren't these tenets of the doctrine of the Trinity clearly defined in the Bible? But the TFG don't have any specific support in the Scriptures or anywhere they can turn to in order to defend their supplementation to saving faith. The answers they do give are a patchwork quilt of scriptural hop-scotch, none really providing any definitive support. Their articulations have been handed down for generations, never questioned. When tradition is challenged, reactions become visceral and quickly leave the realms of reason and logic. Why can we not look at the bible fresh, with an open mind, and not suppose that we can not be wrong? This is what I have done several times in my life, changing and refining my positions. I was once a 4 point dispensational Calvinist like Chafer and Ryrie. I was once a traditional Free Grace advocate. But I have continued to learn, continued to question, continued to look at the available data with an open mind.

In my last post I asked these questions:

What does it mean to “believe in” Jesus in its Johannine, soteriological sense? Is the answer simple or complex? Can it be arrived at easily, or does one have to do hours of research and write a series of journal articles to reach an answer? Will it be a response of common sense, or will the solution require a dissertation? Will it be sufficient to view one verse in context, or must we paste together a plethora of loosely associated verses and considerations?

Anytime you ask a TFG for biblical support of their position you get journal articles, dissertations, complex arguments, machine-gun apologetics (rapid-fire proof texting) -- but no simple biblical proof. The reception of eternal life is the milk of the Word! It doesn't take a theological degree to ascertain from the scriptures what one must do to have life! It doesn't take the theological astuteness of a Calvin or Luther. The answer is clear: one must simply "believe in" Jesus as described in my last post and he will both have everlasting life and certain assurance of its possession. It should not take a dissertation in order to tell someone what one must do to have eternal life and prove it to them.

I have recently read a 20 page argument that the Gospel of John, in the end, modifies the doctrine of saving faith that John goes into great detail expounding for his readers in the first 12 chapters of his book. The arguments were confusing and many of the conclusions were simply non-sequitor. This 20 page article failed to do what John could have done in a sentence or two: clearly state that the content of saving faith (that he gave elaborate testimony to in his 1st 12 chapters [13-17 being the Upper Room Discourse]) had changed, precisely defining for us the new content.

The most important question that can ever be answered is "What must I do to be saved?" or equally, "How can I have eternal life?"

The answer to this question is a matter for the milk of God's word. It is not something deep and inaccessible. It is clearly articulated for us in the Bible.

Jesus of Nazareth, the King of Israel, that is, the Son of God, the Christ, who has the words of everlasting life and whose words are spirit and life says:

"He who believes in Me... shall live"
"Whoever... believes in Me shall never die"

"Do you believe this?" (John 11:25-26)

Jesus asks that we simply and certainly rely upon Him for our secured and guaranteed eternal well-being by believing in Him.