Free Grace Theology

God's Forgiveness Part 2: A Working Thesis

2011-07-14T20:39:00.000-07:00

The Working Thesis

In the last two installments of this series I made the announcement that I have come to a new conclusion on forgiveness, namely, that there is no sense in the Bible, anywhere, in which somone is forgiven of their future sins. Forgiveness is always a temporal, personal matter, where sin is “let go” for a purpose of repairing a relationship, and is granted with reference to sin already committed. When a believer in this dispensation receives the absolutely free gift of eternal life, a number of other blessings follow, an example being the “forgiveness of sins”. At this moment of initial salvation, every transgression and sin carried out, up to that point, is forgiven. Furthermore, the newly regenerate one, in light of the redemption provided through Christ’s death, is given the privilege, right, and opportunity to have any and all future sins forgiven simply through confession to the Father.

The Significance of the Forgiveness of Sins

In the dispensations past, men and women did not share in all of the superlative blessings that have been afforded to those living in the economy of Grace through the cross of Jesus Christ. The indwelling ministry and gifts of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament period provide a stark contrast to anything available to the saints of all prior dispensations. Forgiveness of sins, on the other hand, is not something new to God’s people, in fact it is a blessing that runs throughout the entire Bible. Yet we must be made pefectly clear on this: the process through which individuals are forgiven has greatly changed between the Old and New Testaments due to Christ’s once and for all death for sin.

The Mosaic Law, for instance, had laws and ordinances regulating every aspect of life in Israel. A large portion of revelation within it concerned Israel’s relationship to God. Available within the Law was the provision for forgiveness, which was contained in many and varied offerings of sacrifice, the procedures for which being prescribed by God. The shedding of blood through animal sacrifice provided an atonement through which basis forgiveness could be given. The forgiveness granted was for sins already committed and for the purpose of temporal harmony and fellowship with God.

The New Testament heralds the shed blood of the cross of Christ and attempts to plumb the deep implications of it. Whereas in the Old Testament, the sacrifices were temporary, the death of Christ (the God-Man) was of infinite value. One of the many benefits of Christ’s death is that Jesus, Himself, stands in the presence of the Father as the ever present propitiation for our sins (1 Jn 2:2). Whenever a saint in this dispensation is in need of forgiveness in order to repair or continue temporal fellowship with God, he does not have to shed the blood of an animal. Jesus Christ has made the once-for-all sacrifice (Heb 7:27). The believer’s only need is to confess His sins to God because through the advocacy of the Son, whose presence forever reminds the Father of His perfect satisfaction in regards to sin, God is faithful to forgive and still remains righteous while doing so.

So in summary, the Old Testament saints had to continually offer their imperfect sacrifices so that sin may be covered. The Father looked upon those present offerings and could bestow forgiveness. Different is what the case is in the New Testament. Christ offered the perfect sacrifice, never to have to die again. The Father looks presently upon Jesus Christ, who offered Himself in the past, and grants forgiveness on that basis. The forgiveness sought in both of these situations is for sins already committed.

I am not relating to you things that you probably do not already know; I want to inform you that I am well aware at this point. But have you really thought through this material enough? It is quite apparant to me, that even though there are major distinctions between the Old and New Testaments with regard to how forgiveness of sins was obtained, there remains a consistent thread throughout the whole Bible: the forgiveness of sins is for saints within the sphere of time for the purpose of temporal fellowship with God. No matter where it is found within the Bible, forgiveness is an “in time” (temporal) benefit that does not extend beyond the present. It is the method through which the believer remains or returns to fellowship with his Creator (or with regard to initial salvation, forgiveness initiates fellowship), and it is a personal issue with God, not judicial.

Forgiveness is not an eternal consideration with God.

One of the problems (among many) that Free Grace advocates have with Lordship Salvation proponents is the way they import the idea of eternal salvation indiscriminately into a wide variety of passages. Whether it is in the areas of discipleship or temporal deliverances and consequences, they seem to read the bible disposed to understand almost everything with regards to the eternal. They have eternity on the brain!

But do we? Have we, in our passionate emphasis on soteriology, mistakingly supposed the forgiveness of sins to refer to and guarantee our eternal standing with God? Where did we get this from? (I do have some ideas I will share later). Is this a tradition that has been handed down to us and not arrived at through precise, hermeneutical care? In this series I will attempt to show that this is not a doctrine taught anywhere in the Bible.

Our Temporal Lives in Relation to God are of Great Importance to Him

The way we presently live in this world, in our relationship with God, is of great interest to Him. An impartial reading of the Old and New Testaments for the purpose of discerning the degree to which God is concerned with how one lives in the here-and-now in relation to Himself may surprise some of you. Certainly God has made provision for our eternal well-being, but it may not follow in your minds that He has precisely and especially done the same for our temporal life as well.

Maybe you think that I am going too far with my conclusions concerning your possible estimate of God’s consideration of our “in time” relationship to Him. Fair enough. Allow me the opportunity to access it through a series of questions. Have you ever considered that there are divisable blessings found within the salvation package we received upon believing in Christ for eternal life? Are these blessings clearly differentiated in your understanding, or do they overlap so much as to tend to blur the lines between them? Is “forgiveness of sins” just another way of describing “justification”? Do you realize that there are benefits provided for the believer that solely relate to our relationship to God now, able to be distinguished from those which are eternal? Wouldn’t it make sense that there would be? Let these questions sink in for a moment.

As a side, we have all heard Covenant Theologians blast Dispensationalists for advocating two methods of salvation and I have read the same charge in reverse (See Ryrie’s Dispensationalism, pgs 192-93 for both cases). Could these misunderstandings stem from confusing “forgiveness” with “regeneration”? People have often looked at the sacrificial system which was a basis for forgiveness in the Old Testament and erroneously supposed that in some way it was a means through which God eternally saved individuals of Israel. People have always possesed eternal life through faith alone (Jn 3:3-8; c.f. 3:16), but it is evident from the study of the Bible that forgiveness is conditioned on works (see Lev 4 and ff for OT saints, and c.f. Mt 6:14-15 w/ 1 Jn 1:9 for NT saints), both being certainly based upon sacrifice.

Category Error

As we have already noted in this article, Christ’s death has many benefits that the New Testament explores. I believe that we will spend eternity learning (and experiencing!) of all the blessings that have and will ever yet be showered upon us through the merits of the cross and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Eternal participation in the Kingdom of God, regeneration and eternal life, justification, resurrection, “the forgiveness of sins”, the ministries of the Holy Spirit, the prospect of riches in the ages to come, redemption, opportunity for co-heirship with Christ, the cleansing blood of Jesus as we walk in the light and other provisions for temporal fellowship with God... these are but a partial list of blessings established upon the foundation of the cross of Christ.

An act of charity may have many distinguishable benefits which can include a diversity of provisions each with their unique intents, senses, and purposes. One may think immediately of a last will produced to administer the property and resources of the recently deceased. Today’s legal environment can be utilized to manage one’s “estate” in a very detailed way. Trusts can be set up in a variety of manners, items and funds bequethed with stipulations and conditions, and property divided with specific intents, all with varying objectives. Such is precisely the case concerning the magnanimous deed performed by Jesus Christ on the cross. Resulting from it comes the manifold blessings contained only fractionally in the catalogue of the preceding paragraph.

Herein lies the relationship between these blessings: they all flow from the infinite value and merits of the cross of Christ. Since we should regard this statement as true, we shouldn’t be surprised to see distinguishable benefits, stemming from the death of the Son of God, being presented together in the text of Scripture, where authors like to heap blessing upon blessing! Yet it should not be automatically assumed by the wise interpreter that since the Biblical writers integrate these doctrines in their writings and sermons that they affirm equations between them, or consider them anything but able to be differentiated.

I have taken 3 classes in hermeneutics, two at the undergraduate level and one at the graduate. I have also taught the same class at the Associate’s degree level for a Bible College, called Equip Bible Institute. One of my professor’s, Dr. Garland Shinn, taught me a principle of interpretation based upon the doctrine of inscripturation. God gave man a wide range of vocabulary through which to articulate the glories and wonders of God. The writers of Scripture wrote “not in words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual [words]” (1 Cor 2:13; c.f 2 Tim 3:16 & 2 Pet 1:20-21). Dr. Shinn used to drive home the point that the Holy Spirit used precision in guiding the writers of Scripture in their word choices. Why did they use one word over another? Here he sums up my point, “Similarity is not identity. Distinguish between two things that are similar. Words and concepts are only identical if they are affirmed to be” (Dr. Garland H. Shinn, Practical Biblical Hermeneutics, Class Notes, 1997, emphasis his). Unless Scripture affirms two things to be identical, we may not.

Nowhere in the text of Scripture is “the forgiveness of sins” affirmed to be equated with justification. Since this is true, we must distinguish between them. The first distinguishing characteristic between these two doctrines is that forgiveness is a personal issue between God and man (or man and man) and justification is a judicial issue. This point is famously illustrated by the late Zane Hodges:

Suppose I go to court on charges of stealing someone’s car. The judge before whom I stand does not concern himself with the issue of forgiveness. As a judge, his only concern is with the question of guilt or innocence. He will either clear me or condemn me.

But suppose it was the judge’s car that I stole? As an individual he can choose to forgive me, or not to forgive me. But whether he does or not, the decision has nothing to do with his role as a judge. It is purely a personal matter between myself and him. [Zane C. Hodges, Harmony with God: A Fresh Look at Repentance, pg 72]

What Zane called this was a “category error” (ibid., pg 70), lumping two diperate doctrines into the same category. He continued, saying, “this is a serious mistake.”

“The Forgiveness of Sins” is stated traditionally to have two senses. One is the familiar sense illustrated throughout this article, being that of a personal issue between God and man. The second sense that this doctrine is stated to have has been termed, “judicial,” “forensic,” or “legal” forgiveness. This sense states that God has decreed the believer in His Son forgiven eternally of all sins, “past, present, and future” as a punctilliar act. Traditionally, this is described as a legal declaration, so similar, in fact, to justification, that the line is blurred between the two, and people actually identify one with the other.

Let it here be noted that there is no need for another legal declaration beside justification! Justification is complete and sufficient on its own to completely clear the believer of every charge of evil, giving him the very righteousness of God. Any sense of forgiveness that claims to be “judicial” is completely superfluous. When the one declared righteous by faith in Christ appears before God, he stands whole, completely cleared before His bar of justice, having God’s very life through regeneration. Furthermore, he is sinless, so forgiveness ceases to be necessary.

These two doctrines were never meant to be confused or blurred! Forgiveness, in no sense, has any legal aspect to it, nor is it ever given as an indulgence, granting forgiveness of future sins. Forgiveness of sins is not equatable with justification. Some have seen a significance of Paul pairing “the forgiveness of sins” with justification in Acts 13:38-39 that deserves closer inspection:

Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

---(through Jesus)---> one has the “forgiveness of sins” (Greek: dia)

(by Jesus)---> one is justified (Greek: en)

Clearly it is demonstrated that these two doctrines are distinguished! The need for forgiveness of sins, which is a continual must for the believer in this life comes ---( )---> through Jesus. Remember, He is our Advocate, ever standing before the Father as the propitiation of our sins. When we confess our sins, forgiveness comes through Him. Justification, on the other hand, is a one time act received ( )---> by Jesus. Both are blessings found in Christ, but both are to be differentiated.

The Law of Sufficient Reason

By way of conclusion, I wish to mention this law. It essentially states that one must not jump to conclusions, but base all conclusions on adequate grounds. As interpreters of the Bible, we must be cautious about making statements about doctrines of Scripture before being properly informed of the details surrounding them. Reader, has tradition taught you that forgiveness of sins can be “judicial” in the sense of a one time declaration, eternally forgiving all sins “past, present, and future”? Please stay with this study as we examine the biblical texts that concern “the forgiveness of sins” so that we might come to an informed conclusion on this matter. You should “know for yourself” and not rely upon implicit faith in tradition.

Introduction to the Next Installment of the Series

I am going to make a statement right now that I fully intend to prove in the course of this study: forgiveness of sins is clearly taught in the Bible as a temporal and personal issue concerning our “in-time” relationships, mostly in relation to God – and no single passage in the entirety of Scripture clearly teaches some other related sense, i.e. an eternal (or “past, present, and future”) forgiveness.

Thank you for your time in reading this article. Your comments are welcomed and appreciated!

Your Free Grace Theology Host,
Antonio G. da Rosa

God's Forgiveness Part 1: Introduction

2011-07-04T13:11:00.000-07:00

An Introduction to the Current Study of God’s Forgiveness of Sins in the New Testament

The Method of the Study
Throughout my 8 years of undergraduate studies at a Bible College (it took me 8 years of part time school to get a BA in Biblical Studies) I was introduced to many helpful methodical approaches to studying the Bible. One approach that I have found useful in my own study is the observation, extrapolation, and application method. You start out with a text of Scripture and write down as many observations concerning it as you can, without making any inferences or interpretations of the text. One is to simply make declarative statements concerning the data in the text itself. Next, based on the wealth of information contained in those observations, one would make inferences and extrapolations, but only as far as the text could legitimately allow. This second step is basic interpretation. In class, we were not allowed to make any inference that couldn’t be supported from the text at hand. We did this in order to stay “in bounds” with the text. If there was not enough information within the text itself for a particular pronouncement, we were not allowed to make it.

Certainly, as all students of the Bible know, all the information concerning issues present in a particular text may not be present in the text being considered. So in order to grow in understanding of the issues, the other texts would need to be studied in the same way, with the observations and extrapolations. The information gleaned from all the relevant texts could be used to make greater extrapolations and interpretations, and thus the issue could be considered using all the relevent biblical data and legitimate conclusions could be made – and at the same time the rules of the study prevent improper use of the text, the inclusion of secondary assumptions not found in the text, and erroneous interpretation (and by extension improper application).

The Dangers of Imprecise Observation and Interpretation
This type of exercise is very helpful when studying any issue. I used this very same process to come to the conclusions that I did concerning God’s forgiveness of sins in the New Testament. I have found, as in my study of forgiveness of sins, that I and others have been guilty of making inferences that can't legitimately be supported by reasoned observation and extrapolation and then asserting them as biblical fact. Futhermore, I note that I and others have fallen into the error of "implicit faith," by which we have, without the application of focused study or critical thinking, regarded and taught as truth a wide range of tenets springing from various theological traditions, and not from our own personal study.

We must be on guard about this! Too often I find that we go too far in our theological pronouncements, going beyond what may be legitimately extrapolated from the scriptural data. We must commit ourselves anew to stay "in bounds" with care and precision, going back to the relevant texts, determining to receive nothing more from the text than what can legitimately be ascertained from it. This point, in my estimation, cannot be overemphasized! The imprecise handling of the biblical texts can have a snowballing effect, as illegitimate inferences can be used to make more, which then in turn can be used to make greater ones and so on.

Reader, is it possible that you have not been careful enough with the handling of Scripture? To admit so, as I do, can be humbling, indeed. Some authors, I have read, have been very obstinate to confess their shortcomings, because they have been “published” and their pride and reputation are on the line. One of the many things that I have admired about Zane Hodges is that he continued to test his beliefs against a proper consideration of the Scriptures. Zane’s prayerful and methodical approach to the study of Scripture produced clarity, modifications, and even changes in his beliefs, and he was not afraid to announce them. Fidelity to the Scriptures is far more important than any other consideration. I hope that you will judge this true as well, no matter where you eventually will be in relation to this current study of God’s forgiveness of sins in the New Testament.

A Preliminary Consideration

Many people in my family have expressed frustration when purchasing a birthday or Christmas gift for me. Beside the consistent suggestion of books, I have had a hard time determining material things or services that I want. Last October I got on a scale and found that I was the heaviest that I had ever been in my life. This had quite an impact on me. I needed to get focused on the temporal body that God was using in His service! At Costco, I saw that they had a 2 year membership to 24 Hour Fitness for only $12.50 a month. It was rather expensive, I think like $299, but it was something I could actually find useful besides books, so I suggested it. I knew that there was no budget for such a high priced gift, so I did not even consider it a possiblity – I just threw it into the mix. To my surprise, I did receive the gift for Christmas last year. My wife and my inlaws both contributed in order to purchase the membership (I would like to note for my readers that since this time I have lost more than 25 pounds).

Imagine for a moment that I went in with my gift certificate, was signed up, and given a membership good for 2 complete years from that point on, giving me unlimited access and use of their entire facility (not so hard to imagine since this is the case). Yet what if I were to return for my second visit to find that I must actually pay a fee everytime I entered the gym? I think that you would agree that I ought to be rightly perplexed! Rationally, logically, and reasonably, how could I be financially responsible to the gym for each visit if my 2 year membership accorded me unlimited entry and use of the facility by virtue of its contract? Of course this is an absurdity; it is utterly and obviously senseless and illogical, contrary to reason and all common sense. But this is the type of situation that I am asked to believe is the case with God and His forgiveness of sins!

We are told by most evangelicals, often in the context of evangelism, that when we believe in Christ that we are forgiven for all our sins – past, present, and future. Yet, in the context of Christian living, we are told that we must be forgiven by God for all of our future sins, lest we remain unforgiven and out of fellowship with God. May I propose that this, too, is absurd (illogical, and contrary to reason)? How is it that we are responsible to God to be forgiven for every future sin if we have have already been forgiven of every future sin? This is like being asked to pay a fee upon each future visit to a gym when in fact each future visit has been paid for by purchasing and successfully applying for a membership. This is literally against all reason.

I recollect the first time that my mind was presented with this apparant affront to logic. It immediately was recognized as such. In light of the dissonance that such tension created, I asked a more mature Christian about how these considerations could be compatible. The answer was such, that in my immature Christian experience, I was able to compartmentalize this information, regarding both to be true, even in the light of a weakly attested harmonization. Yet now, in light of my growth in the grace and knowlege of our Lord Jesus Christ, such attempts at harmony do not satisfy my critical thinking processes. I thus am comfortable saying now that we are presented with two contradictory notions. Both cannot be true at the same time. Logically speaking, there are only 3 choices: the first is right while the other is wrong, the other is right while the first is wrong, or they are both wrong. It is impossible to be God fogiven of one sin and God unforgiven of the same sin at the same time.

Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark
In the 1940s a theological controversy came to being within the Reformed tradition. Essentially, one side (Van Til) believed that there were true propositions in the Bible that are contradictory to human logic which can never be harmonized, because God is incomprehensible and man can never know all the same truth as God can for God does not operate in the sphere of logic. The other side (Clark), stated that the truth may only appear that way, and either we must search the Bible for more information that will facilitate harmony, or realize that we will not be able to know the information this side of eternity – but they should both be considered as true, and able to be harmonized, logically understood, when more information is introduced. Examples of such Reformed “truths” that were at the heart of the controversy where “sovereignty and responsiblity,” and “the sincere offer of the gospel”.

In such a controversy, I would side with Gordon Clark. But I don’t leave it there. If there are two doctrinal pronouncements that contradict each other, my first reaction would be to test each one individually, to see if its articulation, based upon a methodical study of Scripture, must be modified or changed. I would posit that either one or both were in error before deciding that there is not enough information. In the process of systematizing my doctrinal thoughts, I have not found two sets of doctrinal pronouncements that are actually to be held in tension and/or paradox, but have found enough information, or have been persuaded to modify or change a position, in order for all held Christian beliefs to be in harmony with one another.

In the issue at hand, God’s forgiveness of sins, I have used these principles in coming to new held beliefs. During the course of my Christian journey, I have heard a large range of teachings and positions. One, in particular, is interesting to note here. I can’t remember which Christian group teaches this, but they were struck by the apparant contradiction of the necessity to be forgiven of what has already been forgiven, and have come to the opposite conclusion that I have. They teach that since one is forgiven of all their sins, past and future, there is no need to confess one’s sins for forgiveness, and so they consider 1 John 1:9 as an eternal salvation text, conditioning eternal forgiveness of sins on confession. I believe that they have discarded the wrong doctrine, but I note them because they were impressed as I am over the contradictory nature of the current articulations concerning God’s forgiveness of sins.

A Plea
In the following article(s) I will be reviewing the pertinent texts concerning God’s forgiveness of sins in the New Testament. I invite you to join with me in this study, to test and challenge your convictions in this area. Even if you do not come to the same conclusions as I do, you can guard against “implicit faith,” having confirmed your beliefs with a precise and methodical study of the Scriptures.

Your Free Grace Host,
Antonio G. da Rosa

On the Verge of Groundbreaking Theological Formulation

2011-06-28T17:23:00.000-07:00

I have been studying the Bible alot lately. I have been doing word studies on repentance and forgiveness of sins in the New Testament. It has been very mind-blowing to say the least. I have been developing some thoughts that I want to share with you all in order to get some feedback. The following is a jumble of a mess trying to articulate what I have been coming to grips with, and here submitted for your approval.

In a nutshell, I am becoming convinced that "forgiveness of sins" is not at all an eternal consideration of God, but ONLY a temporal one. I do not believe it is correct to say that when one believes in Jesus that he has an eternal forgiveness of sins (nor is it correct to state that there is a "forensic" forgiveness, which is an illegitimate confusing of categories), but rather is forgiven of all the sins that he has ever committed (in the past) and has the privilege, right, and opportunity to come to the Father, through the name of Jesus Christ, to have any and all future sins forgiven (1 John 1:9).

People are not careful enough, in my estimation, when reading and studying the word of God, to make critical distinctions in the bible. Redemption does not equal justification does not equal forgiveness of sins does not equal eternal life, etc. They are all distinct, even if they come in the salvific package. Justification is a legal declaration from God. It is the verdict of "not guilty" by way of imputation of Christ's righteousness.

Forgiveness IS NOT a legal issue! Think about it for a second. A judge is not in the business of dispensing forgiveness! He hands down judgements of guilty or not guilty. Judicially, a judge only deals with that issue. Now personally, the judge can forgive, just not in the context of jurisprudence. Lets say that you stole the judge's car and were in front of him for that charge. He could find you guilty and then come down off the bench, take off his robe, and upon your contrition offer you forgiveness. Forgiveness is a personal issue. I did a word study in the last 3 days on all the occurrences of the 2 Greek words aphiemi (to forgive) and aphesis (forgiveness) and I could not find one that clearly denotes an eternal forgiveness of sins; but many CLEARLY denoting temporal forgiveness for the benefit of restoring or continuing fellowship with God. My thinking was started when I realized that forgiveness is not judicial, but relational. Then came the thought, "Why would God have to forgive us temporally for what has already been forgiven eternally, if what is given to us at the moment of salvation is eternal forgiveness?" This consideration alone jarred me from my previous belief concerning forgiveness of sins!

This may seem like some intellectual exercise to most, but I am concerned about rightly dividing the word of truth. Jesus, when evangelizing, almost used exclusively the term "eternal life". Forgiveness of sins IS given when one believes in Jesus for eternal life (see Peter's preaching to Cornelius in Acts 10:43), but it is past sins that are in view (see 2 Peter 1:9); and also in view is the ability to be forgiven of future sins by confessing them to the Father (1 John 1:9) -- the privilege and forgiveness being received apart from converting to Judaism, providing the appropriate sacrifices, and maintaining fidelity to corporate, covenant Israeli ordinances. The sins of the believer, if not confessed when they are brought to his consciousness, will cause an estrangement between God and man that can only be repaired by forgiveness. Eternal life that can never be taken away is the main concern and priority in the gospel of Jesus and His apostles. He offers unending life, resurrection and physical immortality, and eternal participation in the world to come (and by corollary, experience of the eternal life in abundance and ever increasing measure in the life now). In evangelism, we are to prefer the use of eternal life, rather than eternal forgiveness of sins, because there is no clear passage offering an eternal forgiveness of sins by grace through faith. Forgiveness of sins is actually conditioned on two things: 1) not being unforgiving (Mt 6:15) and 2) confessing our sins (1 Jn 1:9), both works. Furthermore, forgiveness of sins does not clearly convey a basic consideration of the "gift of God," received by faith in Jesus, viz., eternality and/or irrevocability -- core, necessary, salvific content (see Jn 4:10, where condition is placed on knowing the gift of God, in order that one may have correct purposeful faith -- we aren't believing in Jesus for provisional life, but eternal life; we aren't believing in Him for a donkey or a Cadillac!).

Future forgiveness of sins is not granted like an indulgence giving assurance that all future, temporal, personal fellowship with God will be maintained despite what one's future actions and attitudes may be. And an all-encompassing eternal decree of forgiveness is both confusing to thought (see above) and completely unnecessary to eternal felicity (see below).

Some may also confuse and or confound forgiveness of sins with justification, which are to be distinguished!

An objection may be stated that apart from some sense of eternal forgiveness of sins that one could not be assured of heaven upon death. My answer to that is that forgiveness is a temporal issue! When eternity comes for the believer, eternal life (God's kind of life, necessary if one is to live with God) and justification (acquittal at God's bar of justice, because of Christ's imputed righteousness) are operative. These considerations assure heaven, the forgiveness of sins (which is always temporal) does not. A believer may die with unforgiven sin, no? Yet he is certainly assured heaven! His unforgiven sin will, in all probability, be a subject at the Judgement Seat of Christ!

This is a work in progress. Your comments and questions are welcomed and entreated, as I would really like feedback in this to either discard this position once and for all (with a persuasive argument against it) or help in pursuing and sharpening this view.

Repentance and the Illustration of the "Stadium Event"

2011-06-25T13:35:00.001-07:00

The illustration of the "Stadium Event": From the stadium owner's standpoint, the only necessary requirement for entrance into the stadium event is a ticket, nothing more, nothing less. From the fan's perspective, many other requirements may be involved, but usually none exactly the same as another fan. For examples: he will have to appropriate money in order to buy the ticket, or aquire the ticket in any other number of ways. The fan will have to get himself to the vicinity of the stadium's gate entrance through gaining access to a form of transportation and using it. You get the idea. Objectively, all that is needed is a ticket. But subjectively, from the perspective of the fan, other necessities will have to be fulfilled.

In the spiritual realm, to which I would now like to correspond this illustration to, the only condition for everlasting life is to believe in Jesus for it. Eternal life comes simply by faith alone in Christ alone. God requires nothing more! But from the perspective of the lost, Jesus could say to them, "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able" (Luke 13:24). One may have to work through many issues to get to the subjective mindset that will be open to the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ. A helpful scale was formulated by a Missiologist (one who studies missions), named the Engel's Scale. At the far spectrum referenced by a (-10) is Atheist, (0) is regeneration and (+10) is completely sold out for Jesus, with many distinct level in between all this. Work may be needed at each step of the way to get the mind prepared to consider openly the message of eternal life. Yet at any point before (0) that a person believes in Jesus for eternal life he has it and is at (0) on the scale. Eternal life is an absolutely free gift received (like the empty hand of a beggar) simply through faith in Jesus.

Please do your own study of the word "repent" and its cognate "repentance" in the New Testament. There are 3 Greek words used: metamelomai (5 uses), metanoeo (34 uses), and metanoia (24 uses). Repentance is used in these 2 complimentary ways 1) as a requirement for people already related to God covenantally (Israel or the Church) to maintain or re-aquire harmonious relations with God -- it is a relationship issue!! and 2) to prevent or stop God's temporal wrath and judgement on sins, with a view toward harmony with God (in the unsaved) or the aquiring/maintaining of harmony with God (in the area of covenant relations with God).

Repentance is never used in a text as a requirement for eternal life, eternal salvation, or justification. Never! We are never met with any text that conditions the appropriation of eternal salvation on an act of repentance, there just isn't one, not even in Luke or Acts.

The Gospel of John, which has as its explicit statement of purpose evangelism (see John 20:31), does not contain "repent" in any form within it. Imagine writing a book on "Significant Treatments for Heart Disease" and failing to mention open heart surgery! If repentance is necessary for eternal life, the silence of the 4th gospel is defeaning. One may only conclude the following in light of John's purposeful ommision of repentance within his book: 1) He did not consider repentance as a condition for eternal life, 2) He failed in fulfilling the purpose of his treatise by ommitting repentance. There is no other option!

The book of Romans, in its section on justification, chapters 3-5, is deafly silent, not even giving a hint of repentance as a condition for justification, but ONLY FAITH. The book of Galatians, speaking about Paul's gospel, does not include a single reference to repentance.

In the light of the facts that the Gospel of John, and Galatians thoroughly omit any reference to repentance, and Romans discludes it in any discussion of justification, in conjunction with the fact that no text conditions eternal life, eternal salvation, or justification on repentance, there is simply no exegetical proof that God requires repentance for eternal life! If God does not require repentance for everlasting life, why do we?

Let the Gospel of John argument first sink in deep. How can you account for the total absence of repentance within the confines of his book which was written so that people could have everlasting life? Then let Romans and Galatians speak to you. Then TRY to find even ONE clear text that conditions eternal salvation on repentance... There is no verse that states something like this, "Most assuredly I say to you, whoever repents has eternal life" (c.f. John 6:47).

Please prove me wrong. Show me with the well-reasoned, exegetical argument of a text, that God requires repentance for eternal salvation. And please don't just reference or quote a text! Prove from the text itself that eternal salvation is CONDITIONED on repentance, or something more than faith in Christ!

This is a very important topic. Please do the footwork yourself, and don't rely on your commentaries and theology books. Do the textual work yourself. If your life depended on you proving to a court and jury that repentance was necessary for eternal life from God's perspective in the New Testament, how would you go about making your solid case and argument? Would you simply quote a scripture out of context and state, "Aha! See!?" Or would you even attempt to show in the historical, literary context that a scripture text certainly conditions eternal life on repentance? I would hope, that if your life is on the line, you would do more than give a few verses that may appear to state what you are saying. I would hope that you would make a well-reasoned argument using the time-tested principles of biblical interpretation of the pertinent texts.

I am open to your comments and questions. If you bring up a text, make sure you take the above suggestion to heart. People's lives are on the line! Eternal life through faith alone is not the same thing as eternal life through faith and repentance! One or both are wrong! Both cannot be right at the same time! We will all stand before the judgement seat of Christ oneday to give an account for our teachings. And beware! Teachers will incur a stricter judgement (James 3:1)!

Unashamed of Grace

2010-11-10T20:43:00.000-08:00

I have posted two new articles on my group blog, Unashamed of Grace. Please check them out.

Antonio

The Content of Saving Faith and the Current Controversy in Free Grace Theology Pt. 1

2010-11-04T15:55:00.000-07:00

As promised, here is installment number one of the transcription of the first of my workshops I gave at the 2009 GES National Conference. There has been some minor editing and formatting. I haven’t been able to locate the outline I gave out for this session. If any of you still have the outline, would you be so kind as to scan it and send it to me?

The Content of Saving Faith and the Current Controversy in Free Grace Theology

As I was mentioning, there are controversies in Free Grace Theology. Unless you were just introduced to Free Grace theology, you probably are aware of some of the controversies, such as:

A) Repentance
B) Assurance, is it of the essence of saving faith?
C) Issues surrounding the ‘Outer Darkness,’ (is this material talking about unfaithful believers or those who are lost)
D) Can believers apostasize?
E) Theory of atonement. Zane Hodges put out an article entitled something like, “Propitiation: Does it Only Work if you Believe.” It is a discussion of an actual versus a potential propitiation.

Today we’re going to be talking about the content of saving faith. And in the process of me talking about this today, I’m going to be splitting it up into two camps.

I want to say at the outset that I have no ill-will towards anyone of an opposing view. I happen to love the people on the other side, I wish them well, and desire to have greater communication with them; but I have fundamental differences with them (as they do with me); and though I can and would fellowship with them, many, if not most do not feel they can fellowship with me, and I do believe that this is a problem.

In the course of this study we are going to talk about two kinds of Free Grace theology. One I call “Consistent Free Grace Theology” and that is the one I believe is espoused by the Grace Evangelical Society, and the other I would term “Traditional” or “Fundamentalist Free Grace Theology” (held by the governing and founding members of the Free Grace Alliance, Dr. Radmacher excepted).

With that, lets begin.

I. Talking about saving faith (here is a brief description of my understanding of what faith is):

A) Faith is a persuasion/conviction that something is true, nothing more nothing less. I think that most of us here are going to agree that faith is persuasion. When I am persuaded that something is true, as a passive result I believe in that. It is no different than mundane, everyday faith. If I say that I believe that my son is going to get an ‘A’ on a report, it is no different than the type of faith that saving faith is.

B) Faith precludes doubt. If someone has doubts in a proposition, he cannot be said to be having faith at that same time. Conversely, if he has faith in something, he does not have any doubts whatsoever in that issue.

C) There can be degrees of doubt but not degrees of faith. One can be strongly disposed toward a proposition, or be leaning towards it. But if a person is not convinced that something is true, this person does not believe it.

We are going to talk about salvation by faith alone. Most people in Free Grace theology believe that salvation is by faith alone.

A. Fundamentalist Free Grace Theology (The theology espoused by the Free Grace Alliance)

1. Their understanding of saving faith is complex, it is a compound procedure, having multiple objects of faith.

They are not talking simply believing in Jesus, relying or trusting in Him. They are requiring that a man jump through consecutive hoops in order to get to the purpose of the faith, and that is receiving everlasting life.

So there are a series of hoops, in essence, that you have to jump through in order to get there. There are some 4, 5, or 6 propositions or more that need to be believed in order for salvation. We need to note here that where they get these propositions from, where they get these hoops from, where they get these steps of believing, that you have to believe this, and then this, and then this, and then this, and at the end there, after you have been able to believe all of that, you can now believe in Jesus for everlasting life; where they get that from is from a synthesis of aribtrary passage selection.

A person that I know who has written a book recently (from a fundamentalist FG persuasion) has stated that he got his position on saving faith through bible synthesis; but the thing that we need to know is, is that this person nor any other person who has a checklist for salvation has apprised us of the objective hermeneutical process by which they regard one truth essential to be believed for eternal life and another to be non-essential. And that is an important thing, because when you think about it, one person’s subjective criterion for finding what truth must be believed for eternal life is going to be different than somebody elses. They are going to be reading the bible differently than me, and when we find it through a synthesis we are going to find that we are going to get into some problems, which I will be talking about later.

2. Fundamentalist Free Grace theology’s understanding of the content of saving faith creates a slippery slope.

A ‘slippery slope’ fallacy consists of minor actions that can cause a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. How much does one need to understand about each component in the content of saving faith checklists provided by traditionalist Free Grace theology? For instance, one of the components of Fundamentalist Free Grace is that you have to believe in the deity of Christ. How much must I believe about the deity of Christ? (One Traditional Free Grace theologian says that I need to believe that “Jesus is God, equal to the Father.” Another one says that I need to believe that “Jesus is merely in some sense transcendent, in some sense something more than a mere human.” Now which one is right? They both can’t be presenting the same gospel if one requires this content here, and one requires another content there. They cannot be.)

Each component in the fundamentalist’s checklist for the content of saving faith has many descending levels of meaning. For instance, if we are talking about that “you must believe in the ‘substitionary atonement,’” well, what do I need to believe about the substitionary atonement? And which position on it do I need to believe in? And once you figure that out, there are descending levels of meaning about ‘propitiation’ and ‘atonement’ and stuff like that. How much do I need to know?

And then, who is the arbiter of this? In each one of the components in the traditionalist’s checklists, an evangelist is coming out and giving you a certain level that you must understand, each one saying something different; but he then becomes the arbiter, he then becomes the authority, and we don’t have a pronouncement of the Lord Jesus. We have a pronouncement on the authority of the evangelist himself.
--------------------

And here I will stop today.

The main point of this section deals with the fact that the theology of the Free Grace Alliance necessitates a multiple object list as the content of saving faith. Accordingly, Jesus Christ cannot simply be trusted in for eternal life. The respondents need to first be pre-qualified by, in essence, confessing a creed of the evangelists subjective choosing.

Furthermore, each credal point has many levels of meaning that will require some form of astute theological awareness. How much awareness, too, is based upon the subjective hermeneutical criterion and ultimately the authority of the evangelist himself, and not the Lord Jesus Christ.

Thoughts on the Up-Coming Free Grace Alliance Conference

2010-09-30T19:35:00.000-07:00

Hi Folks,

October 4 - 6 the Free Grace Alliance will be having their annual conference. I just overlooked their tentative schedule. It promises to be "the best conference in Free Grace history" says the FGA president, Fred Chay. That is an impressive prognostication! Certainly this conference will have much to contend with given the many years that the Grace Evangelical Society has enjoyed them.

I must say there is much to look forward to. I do hope they will be recording the plenaries and workshops as I wish to procure the mp3s.

Jody Dillow spoke at the 2009 Grace Evangelical Society's Annual Conference. At it he hinted concerning major revisions to his ground-breaking work, "The Reign of the Servant Kings". In response to what Dillow calls "Neo-Legalism," Jody continues to re-examine key Sermon on the Mount texts, paralleling the thought of the millennial-exclusionists of yesteryear (yet not fully adopting their interpretations), and providing ample fodder for thought. I did enjoy his plenary address, and it seems as though he is continuing on this vein with his discourses entitled, "Entering the Kingdom is Based Upon Works," and "Entering by the Narrow Door - Matt. 7". Surely he will raise a thunderstorm of controversy with the Duluthian Antagonists, whose key publication has recently released an article entitled, "Unraveling a Confusing Verse: 'Another Look at "Inheriting the Kingdom of God"'" 1.

It seems to me that the Free Grace Alliance is willing to fellowship with all types of Free Grace Theology except as biblically expounded by the late Zane Hodges and the present-day Grace Evangelical Society. Or possibly after the conference, the FGA will make disclaimers against the theology of those who believe that works play a real and substantial role in the Christians' accountability at the Bema and their subsequent position (or presence) in the coming Millenial and Eternal Kingdoms due to pressure from dissidents. We will see.

From the cursory view I took of the proposed schedule, three presentations stuck out to me:

1) Dr. Fred Chay, “FGA: Who We Are, Where We Are & Where We Are Going”
2) Sam Sacco, “Essentials of the Free Grace Message”
3) Jeremy Vance, “Getting the Offer Right: The Gospel Offer Defined”

I cannot wait to dialogue and comment on these three discourses, oh, and as well as those by Jody Dillow.

Controversy will not cease in the Free Grace community so long as there are vocal dissidents who make papal-like condemnations on their brethren. This is a time for Free Grace Theology proponents to unite, to exhort and edify, and to convince with superior biblical arguments in humility, grace, and love.

I pray for a blessed conference for those attending, and I hope that Free Grace Theology as a whole is benefitted.

Oh, by the way, in the upcoming weeks I will be providing verbose, yet slightly edited, text versions of my two workshops at the 2009 GES Conference. I hope to stimulate comment and cogitation by incrementally posting these helpful and thought-provoking dialogues in their full.

Free Grace Alliance, I wish you the best for your conference, and I pray that Christ is exalted and His grace admired and proclaimed. I look forward to reviewing the messages that come from it.

xaris soi kai eirene,

Antonio da Rosa

1. Dennis Rokser, The Grace Family Journal, Winter 2009

How are you all doing?

2010-06-23T17:53:00.001-07:00

Hi, folks. This is Antonio da Rosa, owner (so-to-speak) of this here blog. How are you all doing?

It sure has been a while since I have posted anything here. I just read the article that I wrote about Charlie Bing's two quotes. Good stuff if you haven't read it yet.

I am still a fan of Zane C. Hodges.

I am still an advocate of a "Promise-Only" Gospel.

I still have eternal life, on the authority of Jesus Christ, Himself.

And I am still your brother-in-Christ.

What has changed about me, you may ask? I have had little over a year's worth of many humbling experiences. God has been bringing me through trials for His glory. I can't say that I brought much glory to Him during this time, but it will ultimately turn out to His glory. God is good, all the time.

I am Antonio da Rosa, a grateful believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave me the absolutely free gift of eternal life when I simply entrusted unto Him my eternal destiny by believing in Him in His promise. I say God Bless You!

I do not suppose I will hit the floor running. But I do say that I will be posting articles once again. At what calibre, at what time and rate, I do not know. Your thoughts and opinions are welcomed if they are left in a spirit of humility and love for Christ.

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

2009-06-10T19:49:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-29T13:41:00.001-07:00

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

2009-04-25T17:51:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-14T20:40:00.001-07:00

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

2009-04-10T17:39:00.000-07:00

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

2009-03-20T16:42:00.000-07:00

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

2009-02-25T13:10:00.000-08:00

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

New Quarterly Newsletter from Scripture Unlocked Ministries and René López

2009-02-20T14:41:00.000-08:00

Dear Readers of Free Grace Theology Blog,

Exciting news! A new quarterly Free Grace Theology newsletter has come into existence. It is being produced by René López and Scripture Unlocked Ministries, a 501c3 ministry (all donations are tax deductible). The newsletter is free, and can be requested by snail mail or e-mail. I encourage all of you (whether you identify yourself as Free Grace or not!) to subscribe to this professionally constructed and spiritually edifying production. You may find details on how to subscribe at the end of this post. Don't delay, sign up now so you won't miss out on the first edition!

The following is a sneak preview of a small portion of the very first Scripture Unlocked Newsletter, due to be sent out in March.

Our Purpose for Existing
Our unique niche centers on clarifying difficult passages by using correct interpretive methods apart from the undue influence of theological systems (Calvinism, Arminianism, Covenantalism, Dispensationalism, Progressive Dispensationalism, etc…). Though at times people may identify or use components found in theological systems, the ultimate test of truth depends not on whether an interpreter follows a certain system, but whether one applies the common rules of Bible interpretation (hermeneutics) to arrive at the best possible understanding. While our focus centers on interpreting all of Scripture in order to understand and apply difficult passages in our lives, this ministry holds a special place for clarifying the freeness of God’s grace in salvation. Without someone understanding God’s freegrace offer of salvation, it is hard to understand any other part of Scripture. God deals with man simply on the basis of grace. Man does not deserve anything due to the fact that he originally wanted to become independent from God (Genesis 3:1–7). Thus our dual purpose for existing centers on elucidating difficult passages of Scripture and clarifying God’s free-grace offer of salvation which is at the center of His dealings with humanity—by grace.

Our Plans to Implement
To meet our goals, numerous avenues will be employed: publishing books, public speaking, recordings, videos, newsletter articles, website articles, a future blog, and the possibility of a theological journal. Future plans also involve writing commentaries on Matthew, John, Revelation, and books about The Son of God and Deity in the Gospels, Salvation: Condition and Its Basis, Free Grace Biblical Theology, the Pauline Use of the Vice Lists and Inheriting the Kingdom, and many more ideas in the works. We also want to reach out to the Hispanic community in which free grace is almost non-existent.

In every edition of our newsletters we will include one answer to a hard question regarding a Bible passage or free-grace issue. Other answers to questions will be posted on the website. Thus, we urge our readers to send us hard questions of passages that they have longed to understand. We are committed to spreading the Word at all costs. Although SUM takes a stand on issues that are nonnegotiable (e.g., the freeness of salvation), room exists to agree to disagree on other issues, though important. Thus, we should not hold all truth equally dogmatic since some passages are easier to decipher than others.

Also, in the premiere edition of the Scripture Unlocked Ministries newsletter, our very own Agent4Him, Jim Reitman, author of Unlocking Wisdom, Forming Agents of God in the House of Mourning: A canonical-linguistic exposition of the Books of Job and Ecclesiastes, shares with us a timely article of encouragement that borrows from his studies in these two Books. We now can understand his blogger handle! God has molded Jim into His agent through the suffering and perseverance of trials that allow him to live the abundant life in communion with His Savior, and capacitates him for the contingent glories of the Kingdom of God.

Furthermore, I have been given word by René López that a second edition to his very popular Romans Unlocked: Power to Deliver commentary will be printed and available very soon. In this edition he revisits key passages on predestination and free will that my loyal Free Grace Theology blog patrons will all appreciate. René has continued to hone and sharpen his exegetical precision in what is arguably the most important New Testament epistle.

For those of you who would like to sign up for this free newsletter, please follow this link and let René know if you want to receive the newsletter through e-mail or snail mail. Please of course leave your name, e-mail address or home address.

Click Here to Sign Up for the Scripture Unlocked Ministry's Newsletter!

Also, please continue to visit the Scripture Unlocked Ministry's website to keep updated with all the happenings: http://www.scriptureunlocked.com

your Free Grace Theology Host,

Antonio da Rosa
Lakeside, CA

How to Lead People to Christ, Installment #1: Zane's introduction to his address

2009-02-04T21:15:00.000-08:00

The following is the first installment of a multi-part series that will provide the transcripts of Zane Hodges’ provocative and seminal addresses of the Grace Evangelical Society’s National Conference in 1999, titled “How To Lead People to Christ: Pts 1 & 2”.

Today’s portion is Zane’s introduction to the material he wishes to present. In it he highlights the objective of his message.

Special thanks must be given to brother Don Reiher, who has spent many hours in the transcription of this message (and countless hours providing Free Grace people with beneficial resources). Don, we all appreciate your efforts, and would like to encourage you to continue to make available Free Grace Theology media.

Zane Clark Hodges:

How to lead people to Christ. The title of my two talks at the GES Pastor’s Conference this year may lead you to expect that I am going to talk to you about how to do personal evangelism. Hopefully, you will get some ideas about personal evangelism from the things that I say, but that is not my major objective. Instead, I want to talk about how Grace Theology should effect the way we present the Gospel whether we are presenting it to individuals or to groups.

Nevertheless, before I go any further, let me just say this. I do genuinely enjoy talking to people about their eternal salvation. And, I have done so with many, many individuals over the years. In the Kerugma office where I work, there works with me a close friend who does not attend Victory Street Bible Chapel. When I first met him he did not understand the way of salvation, but over a period of years and after many conversations on the subject he became a believer. He understands now that salvation is absolutely free even though most of the people that he knows do not understand that. He even knows what Lordship Salvation is, and he knows it ain't good. Now the salvation of this friend of mine is one of the very highly treasured results of my many years of service to Christ. It’s an immense joy to me to realize that as a result of his faith in Christ the friendship that we’ve had now for 18 years will go on forever in the Kingdom of God.

What I am trying to say is this. I am a teacher by spiritual gift, but I enjoy doing the work of an evangelist as much, or maybe more than teaching. So as I talk today about putting good theology into our soul winning, I am talking about something that is an important issue to me. And I want you also to know that I try hard to practice the things that I'll be preaching to you today and tomorrow.

The question I am raising in my talks is a basically simple one. Here it is. Have we allowed solid Grace theology to properly affect the way we proclaim and share the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Have we really allowed our Grace theology to impact our sharing of the Gospel? Now I propose to address that issue under two headings. The two headings are these. Number one: The Content of Our Message, and number two: Our Invitation to Respond to It. Now I want to consider the first of these topics this afternoon, and the second one, God willing, in the discussion tomorrow morning.

This introduction shares with us pertinent material that we must keep clearly in mind if we are to understand the rest of Zane’s message. In his own words, Zane gives to us his objective:

I want to talk about how Grace Theology should effect the way we present the Gospel

Have we allowed solid Grace theology to properly affect the way we proclaim and share the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Have we really allowed our Grace theology to impact our sharing of the Gospel?

Zane Hodges had concerns on how the gospel was being presented to the lost. Biblically insupportable practices and unbiblical terminology have found their way into the evangelism of Free Grace people. It was his desire to see that “solid Grace theology” be the foundation for our evangelistic appeals. Zane wanted us to start to think about the issues concerning the saving message in order that we might ask ourselves, “Have we really [really!] allowed our Grace theology to impact our sharing of the Gospel?” It is the fact that he got people’s attention! And he got people thinking; some with an open mind, and others with an unfortunate reactionary response.

As we will find out from the installments yet ahead, Free Grace people often run scared from their theology in the practical exercise of evangelism. In this, they have adopted ways of sharing the gospel that betray concessions to points raised against Free Grace Theology. We have even borrowed methods from Lordship Salvation! Brothers, we must take a good, hard look at the way that we have been accustomed to preaching to the lost, and “allow… our Grace theology to impact our sharing of the Gospel”!

Furthermore, we see Zane’s heart for the lost and his love of evangelism. He puts in practice that which he preaches.

Zane Hodges was a man of impeccable character, as many of his detractors will also note. He has been the Godfather of the Free Grace movement. Zane’s scholarship found in the forms of teaching, preaching, and writing have been lauded by all in Free Grace. I recently saw a vocal opponent of the GES soteriology position use Zane Hodges’ material and refer others to it for a positive benefit.

In light of Zane’s unique position in Evangelical Christianity: never married, scholar par excellence, 26 ½ years teaching Greek and New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, exemplary Christian walk and love for Christ, and past theological achievements (this is by no means an exhaustive list!), those who identify with Free Grace theology (and I would suggest all Christians everywhere for that matter) ought to give him a dispassionate and attentive hearing.

What I am suggesting is that we act as Bereans. There is a process in this. We must first condition ourselves to be “fair-minded” (Acts 17:11). I know this is something hard to do. Often, truth first brushes us the wrong way – is that not the case? Factors within us often withold us from even considering an argument. This often makes people rash in their condemnation. Biases must be set aside.

Next, we must “receive the word with all readiness [of mind: προθυμίας] ” (Acts 17:11). Our minds must be prepared beforehand to willingly and considerately consider the word being ministered to us. Prayer for the Holy Spirit to lead us into His truth is of course appropriate here.

Lastly, we must “search the Scriptures” (Acts 17:11). Often, we search the Scriptures only to discredit another’s teaching that we are already hardened against. This is not what I mean here! The Scriptures being expounded to us must be thoroughly examined in the light of what has been taught. So often men and women go to other texts to use as ammunition against their opponent’s interpretation of another text. We must first start with the passage in view, and then work from there. In having the nobility of a fair-mind, receiving the word ministered to us with impartial readiness, and studying the pertinent Scriptures, so we will be Bereans.

As the footnote to this introduction portion of Zane Hodges’ GES address, entitled: How to Lead People to Christ, I would like to provide a short admonition that was spoken at the 2001 GES conference, entitled: The Spirit of Antichrist: Decoupling Jesus from the Christ (found in a condensed written form in the Autumn 2007 Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society):

… the grace movement faces some significant dangers…

It may seem strange to say it, but the grace movement must face the danger of not being open to God’s Word.

Most grace people probably feel that openness to God’s Word is a hallmark of the grace movement. After all, we are prepared to let the Scriptures speak even if they clearly contradict long-held traditional interpretations. The doctrine of rewards is one such area where the grace movement seems prepared to let the Scriptures speak.

I agree that this has been a strong point of the grace movement up until now. I hope it will continue to be. But there are some warning flags.

… the grace movement must bring all of its convictions to the bar of Scripture. And we must be prepared to revise these convictions however God’s word requires. No movement can remain vital which no longer examines itself in the light of Scripture.

When such examination of our convictions ceases, tradition and dead orthodoxy are not far down the road.

Preface to the new series: How To Lead People to Christ

2009-01-27T18:07:00.000-08:00

Dear Readers of Free Grace Theology blog,

Jesus Christ is my passion and love. I want my life - my words, thoughts and actions - to ever be honoring to Him. He gave His life so that I may have life. Presently, I am trying to give my life to Him because He wants it, He asks for it; and by losing my life I actually gain it.

In this lifelong endeavor to bring glory to Jesus Christ, the One Who alone guarantees everlasting life to the believer in Him, I seek to be true to His word. It is this quest for truth that has led me to Free Grace Theology. This position best represents the whole range of divine data found in Scripture. Free Grace Theology, being derived from the Bible, is a grid also through which to now view the Bible. By means of its tenets, the Word of God may be read prima facie without contradiction, and without the endless inclusions of ad hoc and secondary assumptions to the texts. No other theology or position can legitimately assert this.

All people who can genuinely claim Free Grace Theology share a rich theological heritage, as well as the foundational principles by which it consists. A friend and proponent of Free Grace, Don Reiher, has posted several videos on YouTube that show panel discussions at the Grace Evangelical Society National Grace Conference. These glimpses of history show godly men committed to Free Grace Theology, who nevertheless had disagreements. Their humble practice of grace aligned with their proclamation of it. How very instructional it is to view men such as Radmacher, Bing, Hart, Hodges, and Wilkin share a table in harmony of purpose and unity of spirit.

One of my weak areas is that of Ecclesiology, and specifically ecclesiastical polity. I have recently been exposed to the principles of churches such as the IFC and the like; those who are part of "Separationist" congregations. The study has indeed been informative. It has given me a greater understanding of the attitudes and operations of some of the most vocal antagonists to Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, and the GES. In discussions with those who disagree with the GES in the Free Grace world, including some of its leaders, I have found that the ones who do not have a background in these churches do not believe that the GES is teaching doctrinal heresy. It is the unfortunate truth that people who put a high premium on extreme "separation" doctrine are promoting division in Free Grace Theology, often by less than honorable means. The fact of the correlation between the two is inescapable.

It must be noted that these men are going much further in their dissenting declarations and have been making accusations against the GES and those sympathetic to it. Their cries are of "Heresy!" and even more extreme they accuse of "False Gospel!" while those who are more level-headed, balanced, and deliberate, would not agree to either charge. In taking this extreme course they have sown seeds of discord among the brethren, causing deep rifts between men and women of like mind. Their premature and hostile call to arms has caused grace people, who were heretofore united (yet still having differences in doctrine) to take polar opposite sides and entrench themselves against each other.

Level heads must prevail. We ought not to allow the questionable tactics and attitudes of those with "Separationist" backgrounds to dictate the fate and future of Free Grace Theology.

At Zane Hodge's funeral, I had the opportunity to sit down for some time with Dr. Earl Radmacher. He is very displeased with what is happening in the Free Grace world. He stated that Satan is gaining a foothold in order to "divide and conquer". The fate and the future of Free Grace Theology is in our hands at the present moment. We ought not to allow the confusion and division being propagated by extremists to break us apart. Free Grace Theology needs to be a unified front.

In our conversation, Dr. Radmacher gave an illustration. Paraphrased, here it is: "In the Reformed movement, they have John MacArthur on the West Coast, R.C. Sproul on the East Coast, and John Piper in the Midwest. These three, having significant differences, nevertheless, do not speak against each other, or seek separation. They are unified in their purpose. We in Free Grace Theology ought to stop devouring each other and take a play out of these Reformed gentlemen's book. We need to be unified in our purpose!" I agree with Dr. Earl. Not only do we share a rich theological heritage, as has been explained above, we also share the conviction that eternal life is appropriated simply by faith alone in Christ alone.

Dr. Radmacher told me of an idea that he had at last year's Free Grace Alliance national conference. He suggested that there be leaders of the Free Grace world invited to a table, which does not have any corners or a head, to sit down and discuss these matters. Prayer would begin and end the meeting. During the conversation, one would speak. The next who would speak would have to accurately summarize and characterize the previous speakers message before moving on to his. Not until everyone's points were exhausted would the meeting be adjourned. In the so doing of this process, understanding would result. During this whole time, there would be a greater circle, enveloping the circle of leaders, populated by men and women who were to be constantly in prayer for the proceedings and an individual at the main table. What a great plan! Unfortunately, Dr. J.B. Hixson dismissed that suggestion out of hand. It is yet encouraging to note that Dr. Radmacher and Dr. Stephen R. Lewis are planning something similar at the GES National Conference this year.

Men and women, level heads must prevail! Those who do not operate in the realm of balance have colored the discussion with accusations of heresy and false gospel, all the while others in the Free Grace world on one hand may disagree with the GES, but on the other maintain that they do not preach heresy. We should not allow the questionable tactics of a small few disrupt the unity of our movement. Healing and understanding must be sought lest our movement implode, being relegated to the outer extremes of fringe theology. This self-destructive path is well under way.

Free Grace Theology has something to share with the world! It ought to be given an opportunity to be heard in the marketplace of theological ideas. Yet such a course as we are now on will ensure that such will never be realized. There must be accord. There must be understanding. And there must be charity. Furthermore, those who continually thrive off of the division and strife they create need to shape up, or create their own "Separationist" organization. They must not be tolerated. We must distance ourselves far from their extremist and destructive ramblings. It was a mistake to allow the hostile proclamation of their differences to have a platform at our blogs and our conferences. Dr. Radmacher has assured me that the intent of creating the FGA was not to distance itself from the GES. He invisioned that they could work together. But many pressures have been coming to bear upon some of the leaders so as to exclude those who more simply define the invitation to eternal life; and in so doing, alienate a great segment of Free Grace Theology. I was informed that the recently appointed Executive Director of the FGA, himself, comes from a "Separationist" church background. What a mistake! Such an attitude that comes from those churches surely is at odds with the purpose of the FGA to "connect and equip" free grace people!

We in Free Grace Theology will have differences of opinion. But our convictions are stronger than our differences, and the foundations of our faith are secure. It has been personalities, and not doctrine, that have been ripping our movement apart. It is my opinion that our differences can either be worked out, or set aside in Christian charity (as they have been in the past), that we may get to the work of proclaiming the glorious and incomparable grace and riches of the Lord Jesus Christ.

your Free Grace Theology host and friend,

Antonio da Rosa

Looking back and looking forward

2009-01-20T17:26:00.000-08:00

Dear readers of Free Grace Theology blog,

Coming soon, I will be providing the transcripts of Zane Hodges' two part message he gave at the 1999 GES National conference, entitled, "How to Lead People to Christ". I hope that there will be a wide range of discussion. I personally want to invite any and all of those who take a traditional Free Grace soteriology view to participate. During this series, any and all are welcome.

The following is something that I began to type on Rose's Reasonings in her thread about Yes/No questions, but decided I would rather put it here for your consideration and discussion. All are welcomed to comment, regardless of who you are.

PS: A number of us bloggers are considering ways on how to create blogs conducive to meaningful dialogue by adhering to a type of code of ethics. We hope to hammer this out sometime in order to facilitate an environment that promotes healthy dialogue and debate. Please pray for this, and know that that I am committed to discuss the issues at hand in a God-honoring way.

Now with no further ado:

We live in a sound-bite (sp?) culture. Context is the key by which statements are unlocked. Yes or no questions do not often facilitate understanding in theological dialogue. My advice is stay away from them with all diligence.

The discussions now taking place in the Free Grace world need much time, prayer, honesty, integrity, graciousness, and, did I say, time?

Those of us who hold to a refinement in the content of saving faith do so for many reasons. I and many others I know who align with the GES position came from the traditional understanding. I absolutely understand the concerns of those who side with an FGA understanding, having come from that viewpoint. 15 years ago, I would have had reservations with what I now believe.

To be quite honest, I don't see many in the traditional side of things being very interested in understanding the multitude of concerns I have with the way that evangelism is done. I do not see them truly considering the evidence for my concerns and for my positions. What I see coming from them is more reactionary.

I have been studying, testing, sharpening, and proving this position for over eight years now. What has happened, in general and in my opinion, is that a segment of the traditional side has had a very averse reaction to my position, and that they did so very prematurely.

I preach faith alone in the Jesus Christ of the New Testament Alone for eternal life-- salvation by grace alone through faith alone; so did Zane and so now does Bob Wilkin and the GES. This consideration alone should have been sufficient to allow for gracious discussions and the allowance of the benefit of the doubt for the time being. This should have precluded the accusations and divisions until all the relevent issues had been determined and fully discussed and fleshed out.

I am afraid to say that it has been a legalistic and fundamentalist attitude and mindset that poisioned the hope for meaningful dialogue from the getgo. These reactionaries have first used appeals to emotion and other such instruments to create a prejudicicial blanket that they enveloped my position with. Their coining of several pejoratives was done to further their desire to turn people away and dismiss my position out of hand. Such a mode of operation has poisoned the well and kept people from prayerfully comparing a position, held by godly men who tremble before the Word of God, against the teachings of the bible.

Discussions need to be done to let people decide for themselves based upon a considerate and prayerful exsamination of all the data and evidences in the issues.

We may now be on the way to those discussions. This is my hope and prayer.

Can you be willing to entertain the notion that the concerns that I have are valid? that the evidences I present are valid? that the positions that I take are the truth?

I personally am glad that I continued to investigate this position, even after having the reservations with it. I am now convinced that it is a more precise, and biblically accurate position.

Let it be known to the readership that after the initial pre-emptive type actions of some in the traditional FG side, I allowed the flesh to dictate some of my posts and comments around the blogosphere. In this I added fuel to the fire, and am therefore cuplable for a share of the stifling of this needed dialogue in the Free Grace world. I am sorry to my Free Grace brothers for my part in the hostilities that have been so dishonoring to the Lord. I ask that you all keep me accountable. The temptation to operate in the sphere of the flesh is ever present within us. But the more we operate by means of the Spirit, the easier it becomes to be successful in overcoming our temptations.

I hope that by all means that the Grace Evangelical Society's position may be widely discussed in the realm of Christian and theological ideas without the stifling prejudices heaped upon it by well meaning reactionaries, and without the uncivility and ungraciousness that has painted it from both sides.

submitted for your consideration,

Antonio da Rosa
Lakeside, CA

Bob Wilkin Exposes the Exegetical Flaws of J.B. Hixson's Book

2009-01-03T14:33:00.000-08:00

Dear Free Grace Theology Readers,

You may remember back in June of 2008 that I posted an article called:

Disturbing news concerning the new book by Dr. J.B. Hixson, Director of the Free Grace Alliance

In this article I discussed how in conversations with both J.B. Hixson, the director of the Free Grace Alliance, and Dr. Earl Radmacher, the founding President of the Free Grace Alliance, I found out that Dr. Hixson kept Dr. Radmacher in the dark concerning some very controversial content to his book that Earl was going to endorse.

Since the time of the writing, I have discussed this once again with Dr. Radmacher at Zane Hodges' funeral. He likened the experience to a 'ticker tape parade' that was thrown for someone or some cause and then soon afterwards trying to pick up all the individual 'tickers', as if trying to take them all back. It is basically now impossible for him to do, at least while the first printing of this book (which will probably be the only printing) is in circulation, for his name adorns the book that speaks falsely about his now decesased friend and exegetical mentor, Zane Hodges.

Now we have an in-depth article, written by Dr. Bob Wilkin of the Grace Evangelical Society, exposing many of the errors of J.B. Hixson's soteriology book. It is somewhat lengthy, but gets to the core of the exegetical errors committed in the Checklist Evangelism of the Traditional Free Grace propopents. He furthermore documents the very sloppy nature of the book, and low calibre of its scholarly content -- the book is essentially Hixson's doctoral dissertation done at Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, PA, completed in 2007.

When constructing a dissertation for a Th.D. degree, I believe it is imperative to offer something to the scholarly community which is an addition to knowlege. Such is not the case with J.B. Hixson's book. There is essentially nothing new that has not been plumbed and discussed elsewhere in Christian literature by either Free Grace proponents more qualified then himself or Reformed and/or other Evangelical authors.

In the coming weeks we are going to discuss some of the issues that Bob Wilkin raises in his very well done, reasonable, and Christ-honoring review of J.B. Hixson's book, including J.B. Hixson's plagiarism of Bob Wilkin, as taken from the Grace Evangelical Society website.

Now submitted for your review and consideration:

A REVIEW OF J. B. HIXSON’S GETTING THE GOSPEL WRONG: THE EVANGELICAL CRISIS NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT BY BOB WILKIN

WJC made a very insightful and relevent comment concerning Bob Wilkin's excellent expose of J.B. Hixson's book:

I read Wilkin's review last week and it is a well done analytical look at Hixson's book. It's hard to imagine that this is a Th.D. - and as such it sounds like it is an embarrassment to the "scholasticism" of evangelicalism and the FG movement more specifically. Forgive me if I'm a bit blunt but with sloppy work like this being published to promote Free Grace - who needs enemies? It is amazing what is allowed to pass as a doctoral dissertation in some quarters these days. I am however not the least bit surprised given what has been transpiring at the top echelons of the FGA under the leadership of Hixson. Somehow the lack of scholasticism and the poor support for some of his assertions in the book fit with what we have seen of Hixson's conduct as the FGA Executive Director. What does amaze me are some of the individuals who have chosen to align themselves with Hixson - men who I thought had much more going for them scholastically than is apparent in this "leader"...

A Simple Descriptive Statement with a Syllogistic Proposition

2008-12-26T13:18:00.000-08:00

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God -- 1 John 5:1

Introduction
A descriptive statement is one which is characterized by description; it is a presentation which sets out to describe. By so doing a descriptive statement expresses a quality or qualities regarding the topic matter(s) under consideration. Certain identity may be communicated as a result of employing descriptive statements by limiting and/or modifying specific understandings of the subjects to which they address.

For Example
Descriptive Statement: Whoever is convicted of a felony is a felon.

Taken as a statement of fact for the sake of argument, whatever else may be true of someone, if that person is convicted of a felony then that person is a felon. This type of statement can be represented logically like this:

whoever does A is B
or more simply as
if A than B

Let us flesh this out just a little bit more. If someone is convicted of a felony yet is a superior court judge, is he still a felon?

Yes.

Why?

The true descriptive statement under consideration regards everyone, without exception, who has the quality of having been convicted of a felony as being a felon.

Let us make sure this horse is dead. According to this statement:

Anyone who has received the Noble Peace prize and is convicted of a felony is a felon.
Anyone who is Reformed in their theology and is convicted of felony is a felon.
Anyone who cures cancer and is convicted of felony is a felon.
Anyone who (fill in the blank) and is convicted of a felony is a felon.

This descriptive statement is absolute in its purpose of identifying everyone who is convicted of felony as a felon. Again, no matter what else may be true of the one convicted of a felony, according to this statement (which has been taken as a statement of fact for the sake of argument) the one convicted of a felony is a felon.

So whenever this question concerning certain identity is asked, "Who is a felon?" the specific and exceptionless answer is "Whoever is convicted of a felony." This cannot be overemphasized. No matter what else may be true about a person who is convicted of a felony, he is absolutely identified as a felon.

Horse dead.

Context
The Apostle John's heart yearned for Christians to be in fellowship with God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. This very desire of his was the theme and focus of the First Epistle of John (1 Jn 1:3). For John, love is a hallmark of the one who is in fellowship with God (1 Jn 4:16b).

As Free Grace Theology people know from Scripture, true born-again Christians cannot always be characterized as loving God. For as 1 Jn 4:20 states:

If someone says, "I love God," and hates his [Christian] brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

If a believer says that he loves God and coincidentally hates his Christian brother he speaks falsely concerning his affection toward the Most High precisely for the reason that John gives in the aforementioned verse. At any cross-section of time that a child of God hates his brother he is not loving God. Therefore it is incumbent upon the Christian to love his brother.

Much in the same way that a certain lawyer once asked, "...who is my neighbor?" (Lk 10:29) a Christian interested in an intimate fellowship and love relationship with God may ask, "Who is my Christian brother or sister (that I may express my love to him/her)?" John's categorical answer to that question is found in this justly famous descriptive statement:

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (1 Jn 5:1)

A Description that Provides Certain Identity
John, the Apostle of Love, utilizes a descriptive statement in order to positively identify regenerate men and women for the benefit of his saved audience in order that they may know who are to be the beneficiaries of their familial love. He does so using a statement similar to the one above that identifies felons.

When answering the question, "Who is a Christian?" the Apostle John answers, "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ." John positively identifies Christians for his audience by describing them as those who believe that Jesus is the Christ. For John, anyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born-again, no exceptions: "John's definition of a Christian brother is simple and direct. Whoever (there are no exceptions!) believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (Zane C. Hodges, The Epistles of John pg 212).

No matter what else is true about someone, if he believes that Jesus is the Christ, he is a born-again Christian. I hope that this statement will go without objection, for it follows the logic demonstrated above in the example about felonies and felons. Precisely identified by the Apostle John, a Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the Christ; said another way, no one who believes that Jesus is the Christ may be excluded from being identified as a Christian brother or sister.

Examples of People Believing that Jesus is the Christ in the New Testament
Jesus of Nazareth came in the name of God the Father and in the power of the Holy Spirit. He presented Himself to Israel as the Christ, confirming so by signs, wonders, authoritative teaching, and works of mercy and compassion. Because of these testimonies many were persuaded that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the promised Christ.

Andrew and most likely the Apostle John believed that Jesus is the Christ (Jn 1:40-42), and according to the writer of this gospel, whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (1 Jn 5:1). It should be of great note that this occurrence happened very early in Jesus' ministry. Phillip and Nathanael affirmed His messiahship very soon afterward (Jn 1:43-49). Following these events, Jesus started attracting disciples. His disciples are shown to have believed into Him at the time of His first sign miracle (Jn 2:11).

Another example would be the Samaritans of Sychar. The woman at the well first believed that Jesus was the Christ (Jn 4:29), based solely upon Jesus' prophetic statements about her life. This woman went into the village and told the inhabitants about Jesus. Next, many of the people of the village believed into Jesus as the Christ. Of great note is John's statement, "And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, 'He told me all that I ever did'" (Jn 4:39). Based solely on this immoral woman's testimony of Jesus' prophetic gift, "many of the Samaritans" believed in His messiahship. Please note that this woman's testimony did not include an explanation of the hypostatic union of Jesus and the substitutionary death and physical resurrection. These Samaritans heard, through a severely tarnished vessel, a simple attestation to Jesus' ability, which supported His claim that He was the Christ. As a result of the evangelistic endeavors of Jesus, many Samaritans were persuaded that Jesus was the Christ (Jn 4:42).

Many more examples could be multiplied! These will suffice for our purposes.

These events happened within the first year of Jesus' ministry. This is an important consideration because Jesus did not reveal to anyone His death and resurrection until His third year of ministry (Mt 16:21; Mk 8:31; Lu 9:22). It is crucial to note here that even after giving them this information that they did not believe such would be the case, evidenced by Peter's reaction to Jesus' statements: "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!" (Mt 16:22).

Furthermore, after Jesus had died (thus fulfilling part of His prophetic foretelling in Mt 16:21) the disciples did not believe in Christ's resurrection, even after it was reported to them by two different sources (Mk 16:10-15)!

What can we make of this information? We must certainly conclude that the disciples and the common folks of Jesus' time believed into Him as the Christ, and thus were born of God (1 Jn 5:1), having no conscious understanding or knowledge of any import of Christ's substitutionary death or resurrection. Furthermore, what makes this information all the more important is the fact that the disciples, in actuality, consciously and verbally denied the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, even though they were infallibly foretold to them by Him. The disciples wilfully contradicted Jesus' statements concerning His death and resurrection! These particulars cannot be overemphasized. The disciples consciously disclaimed this information yet still believed that Jesus was the Christ; and according to John's simple assertion, that has no exception, "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (1 Jn 5:1).

This illustrates our logic from above. No matter what else may be true about a person, if he believes that Jesus is the Christ, he is born of God. Said another way, no one may be excluded from being identified as a born-again child of God if they believe that Jesus is the Christ. This holds up no matter what else is true about them.

Syllogistic Presentation
>A child of God is anyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ
>The disciples and common folks believed that Jesus is the Christ apart from conscious understanding and assent to Christ's substitutionary death and bodily resurrection
----------
>Therefore, the content of saving faith does not include Christ's death and resurrection

Conclusion
It has been shown using irrefutable logic these two things:
1) A born again person is one who believes that Jesus is the Christ, no exceptions.
2) One may believe that Jesus is the Christ apart from understanding and assent to facts concerning His substitutionary death and bodily resurrection.

Therefore, is must be concluded that conscious understanding and assent to Christ's death and resurrection are not contents to saving faith.

Discussion and Questions
In this article we have not considered what it actually means to believe that Jesus is the Christ in a soteriological sense (in other words, in a saving way). But what we have done is preclude the assumptions made by many that conscious understanding and assent to Christ's death and resurrection, which facts are the essential basis for salvation, are God-mandated contents for saving faith.

For a detailed discussion on what it means to believe that Jesus is the Christ, please refer to these articles here on Free Grace Theology Blog:

'Whoever [simply] believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God' (1 John 5:1). Do you believe this?

Are We Robbed of John 3:16? -- What does "believing in" Jesus really mean?

Final Point of Clarification
By demonstrating that conscious understanding and assent to Christ's substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection is not God-mandated content to saving faith, I am not, in any way, disparaging these essential facts, nor discouraging their proclamation. We will all be held accountable for our evangelism practices (or lack thereof!) so we must all be certain on what exactly is the target and purpose of our preaching of the gospel to the unsaved. Our endeavor is to lead men and women to Christ, so that they may entrust Him with their eternal destinies by simple faith in Him in His guarantee of eternal life to the believer. Let us not be guilty of biblical imprecision or unbiblical invitations in our evangelism. For a good explanation of the problems associated with biblical imprecision in our gospel invitations, refer to this article on Free Grace Theology blog:

Major Problems with Checklist Evangelism

By all considerations, preaching of the cross is essential and necessary, for by so doing, all men will be drawn to faith in Christ for eternal life (Jn 12:32).

But as a final note, we must present to lost men and women what precisely, without ambiguity and confusion, is the condition for the reception of irrevocable eternal life: FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST ALONE.

A Touching Tribute to Zane Hodges

2008-12-17T09:30:00.000-08:00

I stumbled across a very tender and heartfelt tribute to Zane Hodges that brought tears to my eyes. I believe that you all will benefit from reading it.

Lessons from Prof. Hodges

Let this pastor know that you loved Zane too.

your free grace host,

Antonio da Rosa

René López of Scripture Unlocked Gives Tribute to Zane Hodges

2008-12-11T15:57:00.000-08:00

Dear readers of Free Grace Theology Blog,

I have the distinct pleasure of introducing to you a friend who I am certain will have an impact on your life as he has and continues to have in mine. This man has a fascinating history in his some 45 years and I have come to love and appreciate him dearly. His name is René A. López.

René received his Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary and is inches away from a Doctorate from the same establishment. His emphasis has been exegesis in the original languages, and in this task he has become a seasoned veteran. During this time his careful and well-researched exegetical writings have been published in several important journals, including Bibliotecha Sacra and the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society. He is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) and faithfully delivers papers at their annual conferences on varieties of pertinent and timely issues. René has written two extremely important books that deserve prominent places upon your bookshelf: The Jesus Family Tomb, which debunks the outlandish claim that Jesus Christ’s remains have been found, and Romans Unlocked: Power to Deliver, a masterful new commentary on the Book of Romans. Unfettered and not bound to uncritical and unquestioned allegiance to traditionalist interpretations, René is a free thinker who desires the truth of the Scriptures rather than the praise and approval of any established theological system. But most importantly, he is a man whose devotion to Jesus and careful fidelity to the Word of God coupled with his exegetical skills and writing capabilities will awe you, opening up the Scriptures for you in a fresh new way that will encourage and strengthen you in your walk with Christ.

René is the founder of Scripture Unlocked Ministries which can be found at www.scriptureunlocked.com and is now proudly linked to here at Free Grace Theology Blog. René’s ministry website is a veritable wealth of theological knowledge. Of great interest to the readers of Free Grace Theology Blog will be his database of various theological articles written by him and others: Scripture Unlocked free grace articles. There are many other features to his ministry site that should be thoroughly searched.

René López was a personal friend of Zane C. Hodges and worked under him for some time at Victor Street Bible Chapel, where René had the privilege to be instructed under Zane for many years. Although René has etched out his own unique and scholarly niche in today’s Free Grace Theology world, he humbly acknowledges the debt that we all owe to this man. René was up to speak at Zane’s funeral but time constraints prevented him from sharing his personal remarks. The following is a link to René’s tribute to Zane Clark Hodges:

Free Grace -- A Tribute to Zane C. Hodges: He’s Gone Home
[Note: If a window for a network username and password comes up when you engage this link, merely hit cancel or close and it will take you to the tribute page. It is merely a quirk that René is going to work out]

Furthermore, for all of you who were not able to be at the funeral or able to view it live, you may now see it at this address:

Zane Hodges Funeral Footage

Stay tuned for some pictures of the funeral, graveside service, and reception, as well as some commentary about the funeral.

Printed Tributes to Zane C. Hodges

2008-12-06T13:03:00.000-08:00

The following are pages of tribute from two printed handouts at Zane's funeral. Please click on them for larger images. Check back in a few days for some descriptions of this day. God bless you all.

The Passing of One of the Greats - Professor Zane C. Hodges

2008-11-24T16:41:00.000-08:00

Dear Free Grace Theology readers,

It is with heavy sorrow, and yet at the same time extreme joy, that I declare to you the passing on into eternity of one of the Greats in Christian instruction and example, Professor Zane Clark Hodges.

I believed in Christ for eternal life in 1993, and within a year I had a copy of Absolutely Free! in my hands. This book set the course for my theological instruction and practice. Over the years other books authored by Zane Hodges found their way onto my bookshelves and into my heart.

When I finally got the internet about 10 years ago, I found a website for his publishing company, Redencion Viva, and secured his email address. Over the last 10 years we have corresponded. He has always been available to answer my deepest questions about the Bible. In 2003, I finally met Zane Hodges in Texas, and shared the Lord's Supper on a Sunday morning at Victor Street Bible Chapel with him and had the privilege to take him out to dinner that night.

Since that time we have shared many profitable conversations on the phone and more correspondence via the internet. In March of this year I was able to once again meet him face to face at the Grace Evangelical Society's National Conference. For another time, I had the privilege to take him out to dinner and discuss the Bible and theology.

Zane Hodges and his ministry has changed my life. He was always a very patient man with me. I remember one conversation I had with him on the phone lasting over an hour talking about the doctrine of election. I don't know of any other person in the ministry who has had as great of accomplishments as Zane and yet who is so down to earth and willing to take time out to converse with the little guys like me.

It was Zane Hodges who taught me biblical synthesis. His views and positions on the Bible allow for all the parts to be taken at their face value without having to be mired down with the ad hoc inclusions of secondary assumptions. His take on the Bible rises above each fact, explaining them in such a way, in their context, as to mesh with and compliment each other.

His commentaries on James, 1 John, and Hebrews are second to none, explaining them so deeply, yet so simply.

I love listening to his sermons. He always gave them unique names and used the most interesting illustrations. He was a very well read man, and kept up on current events.

When I received the news about his passing today I was shocked and deeply saddened. I have fallen in love with this man and he has the dearest of places in my heart. He will be deeply missed! The Church has lost one of its Greats!

But the Lord has welcomed him, no doubt, with a "Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your Lord!"

I love you Zane!

"Oh Heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, thank you so much for the wisdom and insight into Your Word that you have given to Zane Hodges! Thank you that You have used him in the capacity that You have, and this for Your glory. You have blessed me and countless others through this humble servant of Yours. My walk with You has been enriched and edified by his ministry. Oh Lord! I await the day that the Lord Jesus Christ comes back, so that I may sit at His table, eating and drinking with Him. Oh Lord Jesus may my life and ministry be half of what Zane's is. Father, continue to use Zane Hodges' materials and teachings to your glory!"

Precious in the sight of the LORD
Is the death of His saints. (Ps 116:15)

Meeting Tomorrow with 2-4 LDS Missionaries

2008-11-11T19:13:00.000-08:00

Dear readers and patrons of Free Grace Theology Blog,

Please pray for me as I will be hosting 2 - 4 LDS missionaries to my house tomorrow.

I work at a church as a part time deal, and as I was getting ready to leave one Saturday, I saw 2 LDS missionaries proceeding to a house across the street from the church. They waved and nodded to me. I nodded and smiled. Now I don't know if they were uncomfortable with visiting a house to proseltyze it so close to a Southern Baptist church or they were arrogant with spiritual pride, or just plain friendly.

As I got into my car, I prayed for those who lived in the house and these missionaries. I found a tract that I like to use from Zane Hodges and wrote something like:

Hello, my name is Antonio da Rosa. If there is ever a time that you want to have your faith challenged by the Bible, I would be most interested in meeting with you.

I didn't hear anything for about a month and a half, but I received a phone call about a week ago and now I have a meeting with them. Please pray for me as I wish to be used as an instrument and tool in God's hands. Pray for wisdom and a moving of the Holy Spirit. Pray that God would orchestrate and oversee the conversation and that I can be sensitive to His leading. Pray for the salvation of these men who have become entangled in a hopeless religion.

I will let you all know how it goes.

Antonio da Rosa

Miscommunication

2008-10-07T13:32:00.001-07:00

Due to a miscommunication, I posted the last article before it was finished. WJC sent it to me as a rough draft and wanted my input as he was still working on the article. It will be back up shortly with the comments and questions already attached to it intact. Thanks for your patience.

The Management

The Unconditional Gift of God

2008-09-27T13:46:00.000-07:00

A commenter on Unashamed of Grace had this to say concerning the position of Zane Hodges:

Zane has taken his thinking to its logical conclusion (ie. no conditions for salvation), and it is being shown for what it is, bankrupt!

In it this critic betrays his lack of understanding in both what Zane Hodges believes and what God’s gratuitous offer of eternal life entails. Let us take this opportunity to correct him.

There are two ways to look at conditionality in reference to eternal life: A) From the perspective of God, and B) from the perspective of the lost.

Imagine a Rescue Mission having a sign stating:

Tomorrow evening, supper will be served at 5PM. It is offered freely and will be available without condition.

This would be quite outstanding. Why? I have done some work at the Rescue Mission in San Diego. Their meals are indeed free, but they do come with a significant condition. For those who are not in their program, in order to receive the food, the Mission requires that you sit through a 45-minute sermon before you can be fed. If you fail to remain in the meeting hall for the whole time, you will not be admitted into the dining facility.

The sign in the imagined illustration above states that no such condition exists; so essentially the dinner is given unconditionally. In this scenario, the Mission does not require any conditions. They are presenting meals to anyone free from condition. Yet we must understand that this dinner offered unconditionally by the Rescue Mission is only unconditional from the perspective of the Mission itself. The Mission is not requiring anything of the recipients. If they (the recipients) want the dinner they may have the dinner without condition.

But from the perspective of the recipient of the dinner, he has to get himself to the Rescue Mission and receive the dinner. Therefore from the perspective of the beneficiary of the food, there are two enumerable conditions that must be met in order for him to possess the dinner that the Rescue Mission nonetheless offers him unconditionally. The one who desires the dinner must put himself in a position that will allow him to avail himself of the meal. Next, the recipient must actually receive the dinner into his hands.

There are lessons to be learned in the above illustration. Let us learn them by now comparing the story above to the doctrine of soteriology (salvation).

From God’s point of view, He offers the gift of eternal life Absolutely Free!, without condition.

1. There are no pre-salvation works to be done.
2. It is not required to make commitments to serve Him.
3. There is no prescribed condition to turn from one’s sins.
4. It is not stipulated that one must surrender his life to God.
5. There are no required tests to be passed; no mandated doctrines to be assented to.
6. Indeed, God does not require anything at the hands of the lost

The gift of everlasting life is just that: a gift, a gift given by grace. As such its offer is unconditional from God’s perspective.

Rev 22:17
Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely [Gk dorean = “as a gift,” “for nothing,” “not subject to a given condition”].

From man’s point of view, there is a general condition and a specific condition that both need to be met in order to avail himself of God’s unconditional offer of eternal life. The specific condition is that the man must receive eternal life in the way that God has revealed it to be done: by believing in Jesus Christ for eternal life. The general condition is that the man must place himself in the position to be able to fulfill the specific one:

1. He may have to strive to find out about God and Christ.
2. He will have to be open to the evidence of the gospel.
3. He will have to consider and deliberate upon the data he is exposed to

Let us put the pieces together. God is like the Rescue Mission that put out the above sign, offering a meal free of condition and cost, in that God offers eternal life on the same basis. The willing beneficiary of the meal is like the desirous recipient of eternal life in that they both need to position themselves into a place enabling them to receive the graciousness of their benefactor and then actually receive the benefit.

Regarding the San Diego Rescue Mission (the actual one I have associated with), they offer meals free of monetary charge, but require a commitment nonetheless, and is therefore conditional; they are demanding an action that if left undone would disqualify one from their offer. In this instance, there is nothing wrong with the San Diego Rescue Mission’s policy. I applaud it. If a hungry homeless man wishes to be fed it shouldn’t be too much to sit in on a gospel presentation as a requirement for food. It is also shrewd for the S.D.R.M. to require such, for many if not most of these people would never willingly subject themselves to the Word of God.

In the current controversy, the ‘Theological Legalism’ of the Checklist Evangelists operates in the same way as the San Diego Rescue Mission, in that, although they may offer a gift free of monetary payment and/or meritorious endeavor, they do require conditions which preclude it from being an unconditional offer received only through Free Grace.

When I used to be associated with the San Diego Rescue Mission, I often talked to some of the homeless people, who weren’t part of the program, outside of the shelter. Many of them, although hungry, did not want to expend the necessary resources in order to fulfill the conditions laid out by the S.D.R.M. in order to get the food. The conditions laid out by the Mission therefore had the potential to keep the Mission’s food out of the homeless person’s hand. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t charge the Mission with any wrongdoing here. I am only making a point. Furthermore, when I used to sit in on the sermons that preceded the meal I often used to see people get up and go out the door (and were not let back in). The conditions laid down by the Mission were too much for those individuals to bear at that moment. Again, in this instance, the conditions kept these individuals from receiving the benefit of the Mission’s conditional offer.

God’s offer to the lost is, in its very essence and core, an unconditional offer. Anytime men and women add conditions and requirements to God’s gratuitous offer of eternal life through the Lord Jesus Christ they frustrate grace to one degree or another. We have been charged to clearly and accurately give to men the hope that is in the gospel, eternal life free of charge and condition. When we corrupt the gospel in any way we fail the One who entrusted it to us. And woe to us who presume to add to the words of God! Anytime this happens it is sin.

Those who impose conditions on the reception of eternal life are adding to the words of God on the matter. The Gift of God, eternal life, is essentially unconditional. This cannot be overemphasized! Christ, Himself, fulfilled all the conditions for making this everlasting benefit available apart from any imposed and God-mandated requirements on the lost.

The methods and Theological Legalism of the Checklist Evangelists, whereby they impose conditions upon God’s unconditional offer, could preclude the lost from everlasting life, keep assurance from the saved, and bring down the discipline of God upon those who advocate this position.

Rom 11:33-36
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

"For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?"
"Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?"

For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

The following is something that was written by my friend, WJC. It is a portion of an article that he wrote that will be showing up here soon.

We must carefully guard against creating a doctrine in which we apply and impose our human understanding and man made requirements upon God and on that basis presume to know how God is obliged to operate…. it would be far safer in light of the evidence to conclude that God closely and consistently guards the simplicity of the offer of eternal life – even in the post-cross era…. It may sound silly to have to say this but, in studying the scriptures, we must always be careful to recognize that God is free to act according to His gracious and merciful will - unconstrained by any human attempts to impose our own parameters.

God has been pleased to offer the gift of eternal life apart from any imposed conditions or requirements. This decision of His, based upon His unfathomable counsel, leaves us in awe. This resolution from God does not sit well with some and they doubt whether or not He has indeed determined to operate in this way. Questioning this dumbfounding consideration has led individuals to frustrate grace in varying degrees by introducing conditions into what is and shall always be unconditional.

2 Cor 9:15
Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!

Various Thoughts Stemming from Zane Hodges' Poignant New Article

2008-09-24T19:36:00.001-07:00

God has spoken in His word what He requires of men and women to do in order to receive the free gift of everlasting life. In His wisdom, He has determined to require men and women to trust in Jesus Christ for that gift. At anytime men and women add requirements to the one and only God-ordained condition of simple faith/trust in Jesus for the gift, they are imposing a form of:

LEGALISM.

When men and women add requirements of various doctrinal assents to the one requirement that God has given to men (faith alone in Christ alone) they are engaged in legalism.

The Bible never, ever asks the sinner to assent to doctrines in order to be saved. God simply asks men and women to trust His Son.

I stipulate and have always stipulated that men and women will have to assent to various things in order to be persuaded that Jesus guarantees their eternal well-being by faith. But there could potentially be infinitely different scenarios and variations of information that could get people to that point of faith in Christ. These considerations are the responsibility of the lost. Jesus says, "Strive to enter the narrow gate" (Lk 13:24). Obviously, in our evangelism, we have certain facts which are of 'first importance', that are the strongest testimonies unto the saving ability of Christ. But we must not confuse these things with the Biblically stated condition of faith alone in Christ alone.

If the Bible states that God has only required simple faith in Jesus for eternal life THEN anything added to that requirement will be LEGALISM.

Not all legalism is fatal (in the sense of preventing one from eternal life), but it should always be:

AVOIDED!

I have stipulated, and so does and has Zane that through the ministry of the Checklist Evangelists associated with the Free Grace movement people can and do get saved. Nevertheless, this does not negate the fact that they are legalists in the sense that:

IF SOMEONE DOES NOT ASSENT TO THEIR LAUNDRY LIST OF DOCTRINES, THEY CANNOT BE SAVED

EVEN

IF THESE PEOPLE TRULY ENTRUST THEIR ETERNAL DESTINIES INTO THE HANDS OF JESUS CHRIST.

This is just one of the problems that Theological Legalism can produce (not to mention problems with assurance and other things).

Every reader here would have to AGREE that anything added to what God requires man to do to receive everlasting life is LEGALISM.

They would also HAVE to agree that if it can be shown that God does not require (AS A GOD-MANDATED REQUIREMENT) the assent to sundry doctrines for the reception of eternal life that ANY INSISTING OF SUCH

WOULD

BE

LEGALISM.

Conclusion:

If God has only mandated that men and women ONLY believe in Jesus for eternal life (and ultimately leaves the individual responsible on how he can get to that point)

and

Man adds any FURTHER REQUIREMENTS as if they were from the MOUTH OF GOD

THEN

Such IS LEGALISM

--------------------

Some say that eternal salvation is only for the orthodox.

Go have some discussions with your children as to the nature of Christ being fully God and fully man. Go ask them as to substitutionary atonement. (Indeed go ask them on any number of doctrines)

Let us see how orthodox they are on these points. Maybe you will find that salvation can be for the UNORTHODOX too!

--------------------

It has been granted time and time again that a variety of things about Jesus will HAVE to be understood and assented to in order to bring one to the point of resting his eternal destiny upon Jesus by faith.

But this is different than saying that such things are REQUIRED as if from the MOUTH OF GOD.

--------------------

The following is a syllogism that shows that it is not rhetoric, but simple truth, to label the position of the Checklist Evangelists as “theological legalism”

1) According to the Bible there is only one God-mandated requirement for the reception of everlasting life: simple faith in Jesus Christ for it
2) Anything added to the God-mandated requirement(s) for the reception of everlasting life is legalism
3) Checklist Evangelists add doctrinal requirements in ADDITION to faith alone in Christ alone

therefore

4) Tthe checklist evangelists are guilty of LEGALISM

Checklist Evangelists are masquerading as Free Gracers. Listen, Free Grace theology revolves around the fact that eternal life is ONLY RECEIVED as a free gift. Trusting in Christ receives the gift. It is a beggar having his hand out and a benefactor graciously imparting sustenance.

The activities of the checklist evangelists have the POTENTIAL to frustrate grace. It can be easily imagined that in scenarios of checklist evangelism the lost are asked to pass a pop-quiz before they are allowed to take the gift freely.

Can you see the difference between these two things:

1) Someone giving out a gift, period. Just ask and you have it.

2) Someone giving out a gift but requiring that you pass a test before you can ask and then have.

Free Grace theology is built around #1. Checklist evangelism can be guilty of #2.

Interim

2008-09-20T14:17:00.000-07:00

There is some discussion going on concerning issues pertaining to public interest in the current Free Grace theology discussion. I have taken down the latest article for the time being until I can get some finality. There will probably be a follow up article very soon.

Your prayers for the leaders in the Free Grace Theology community at this time are very needed.

Your Free Grace Theology Blog host,

Antonio da Rosa

I am Alive and Kicking (and Praising the Lord!)

2008-09-18T17:17:00.000-07:00

Dear readers of Free Grace Theology Blog,

Thank you for your continued patronage. Things have been very busy in my life recently. My wife is opening up a restaurant for her company and has been working 13-hour days for the last month. I wake up at 3am, go to work, pick up my youngest children, drop off the carpool, get my kids on their homework, get them a snack, pick up my eldest son from cross-country practice, make dinner, clean up, get the kids bathed, do our devotions and bed-time reading, and get them to bed. By this time it is 8:30, I get a little time with the Lord and get to sleep, sleeping only about 6 hours, and wake up and start it all over again. You think that I would have some time on Saturdays… well, I work 12 hours also on that day which includes my second job. Add to this that my eldest son now attends a charter high school where he is only on campus two days a week and the rest of the time is independent study. It is my job to keep him on track and task, and help him with his home studies. Thankfully there is light at the end of the tunnel, in that the restaurant will finally open sometime next week, and my wife will not have to spend any more time training the front-end staff. She has been training over 80 individuals (servers, bussers, hosts) on all the points of fine dining service.

There are so many things to talk about.

Recently, Zane Hodges wrote an article in the Grace Evangelical Society newsletter addressing many people’s tendency in Christianity to test one’s profession in the Lord Jesus Christ by their adherence to various and arbitrary orthodox doctrines. This he calls ‘doctrinal legalism’. He did a great job of arguing (quite simply, by the way) that their touchstone passage (1 Cor 15:1ff) does not serve the purpose they have projected upon it. I highly recommend this article! You must read it!

I simply cannot do the article justice in a review, for the article is only two pages long, short enough for you to read under 8 minutes, and I would ask you to be the judge. If you want to be mailed this current newsletter, please call (972) 257-1160 and ask for one to be speedily sent out to you, and you can be signed up to be on their free mailing list.

I have been very busy, tired – and a bit burnt out from blogging. Yet I feel as though Zane’s article, the few recent phone conversations that I have had with Zane and Bob Wilkin, and some encouragement from the Lord has blown some more wind into my sails. I plan on writing and publishing something this week which will address current issues in Free Grace Theology.

Ok, ok! I can’t help myself. I will just give a couple of sentences from Zane’s article:

… recently another form of legalism… has achieved a heightened profile. This [theology] maintains that eternal salvation is by “correct doctrinal conviction.” It is not enough to simply believe that Jesus Christ gives us eternal life when we believe in Him for that. We must also believe certain orthodox doctrines which go along with such belief. But these doctrines are not in themselves identical with believing in Jesus Christ for eternal life. Instead these beliefs form a kind of checklist that measures the validity of one’s faith. [emphasis mine] I call this form of legalism theological legalism [emphasis his]. Basically it is salvation for the orthodox![emphasis mine]

Theological legalism [emphasis his] seeks to co-opt Free Grace theology. Indeed, it masquerades as this kind of theology. But this claim is false. [In this form of legalism] [g]race is not given freely to the sinner who believes in Jesus for eternal life. Instead, grace is denied to that sinner unless he subscribes to the relevant theological propositions [emphasis mine]. A recent book entitled Getting the Gospel Wrong prescribes five core essentials that one must believe to get eternal life. If a person fails to believe even one of the five, he has believed a gospel that cannot save him.

But at this point obvious problems emerge. Who determines which theological doctrines are necessary for eternal salvation? The Bible, we are told. But where in the Bible? No single place, we are told. Who then determines what the definitive list contains? The answer, of course, boils down to this: the theological legalist himself! Because if the legalist himself doesn’t tell us, no one will ever figure it out!

[Zane C. Hodges, The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism, The Grace Evangelical Society’s Grace in Focus September/October 2008

I read today someone from New Tribes Missions who wrote a brief response to Zane’s article. What I found did not contain any thoughtful response to Zane’s arguments, but an appeal to emotion. What I have found in this conversation from the other side is much too much emotion. This type of dialogue does not have any substantive profit... it only poisons the well (which often times it seems constructed for that specific goal!).

The Lord is using Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, and the Grace Evangelical Society to expose the errors of our Free Grace brothers and sisters who demand doctrinal conformity as a condition for eternal life rather than only simple faith in the glorious Savior for the gift He so desires to give men and women.

Let us not garble our message by ad hoc inclusion of sundry and arbitrary doctrines in our invitations for the lost to receive eternal life. Let us simply call upon them to entrust their eternal destinies into the able hands of Christ by simple faith.

Praise the Lord for such simplicity and graciousness!

An Email Synopsis from a Reader of Free Grace Theology Blog

2008-08-10T19:44:00.001-07:00

Dear faithful readers of Free Grace Theology Blog,

I was refreshed to take a vacation with the family where we went beach camping at South Carlsbad State Beach for a week. We went with 3 other families and their children. It was beautiful, relaxing, and fun for the kids and the adults. Unfortunately for me, on the last night of our trip that as I was helping prepare dinner for the troops I sliced a portion of the tip of my left index finger off. The Lord be praised that although I was out of work for one week after the trip, my finger has been miraculously healing and will be 100% within a couple of weeks. I am back at work and have no pain.

I have been reading all of the excellent comments, questions, and answers from you all found within the meta of my posts. They have been pleasant and informative, and have been raising pertinent considerations. I do hope to jump into them soon.

There will be some very provocative posts coming up, so stay tuned.

The following is an email I received from a reader of Free Grace Theology Blog. It has been edited somewhat. This friend has been in the loop of some of the happenings since my blog asked poignant questions concerning Dr. J.B. Hixson. Here is his synopsis for your consideration and discussion.

Dear Antonio,

I read through every last detail late last night. I completely agree with [name witheld] regarding the excellent way you have not only defended yourself but poor Dr. Radmacher as well. You have done a great job... of nailing J.B. [Hixson] to the wall. Dr. Radmacher is looking more and more like the unfortunate victim of Hixson’s conspiracy to conceal by withholding critical additional information in order to get the endorsements he wanted and further his personal goals and aspirations. It is obvious that Hixson is only out for himself, his own agenda and he has no regard for Radmacher’s feelings or his relationships with Zane, Bob and GES in general. Hixson appears to have been deliberately deceitful and conspired to place Radmacher in a very uncomfortable place (to put it mildly) regarding his allies and friends in the FG movement – making him look very bad to the uninformed friends of Zane, Bob, GES and FG in general. I'm not sure Radmacher has the backbone to oppose what has taken place and is occuring...

Hixson obviously is no fan of yours and is angry that you have called attention to his devious plot and he lashed out at you accusing you judging his intentions. Well just let him know that you are simply calling attention to his actions and as the old saying goes – actions betray intent. ...And let the chips fall where they may. As you have so accurately said – this is not a man who has conducted himself in a manner worthy of this kind of leadership – or any leadership frankly, and especially spiritual leadership. His “scholasticism” seems to be severely lacking for someone who either has or is in process of getting a PhD. He bears an uncanny resemblance to our Lordship adversaries when it comes to his skills at mishandling scripture (sloppy as you put it) and misrepresenting certain FG views! His logic is riddled with nonsequetors when he makes a weak attempt to use Paul to establish his case…

In contrast Antonio, you have proven yourself to be a faithful, loyal and exemplary friend through this difficult ordeal. You are a good soldier and relentless warrior for the cause of Christ and I pray that God will continue to strengthen your hands for the spiritual battle that we’re in . The effect of what is happening through the current FGA "leadership" will ultimately neuter the FGA and convert it from a force for cohesion and strength with regard to God's grace to just another religious “country club” spewing more fog and ultimately weakening the FG movement.

I was very disappointed with Charlie Bing’s conduct in all this but honestly not surprised. He is proving himself to be a better politician than a gracious and ethical leader… and friend.

Thanks for sharing what you have been going through these many months – you’ve had a heavy burden but you have born it well my friend!

May God be gracious to you and give you peace Antonio.

Never give up – you’ve picked the right battle and you have many strong allies…

The Simplicity of Christ vs. the Understanding of Theological Sophisticates

2008-07-25T08:55:00.000-07:00

Guest post by WJC

It really should not be a big surprise that we have a situation emerging within the FG camp in which men who are theologically sophisticated, well educated, trained in the scriptures and in positions of spiritual leadership, are defining and requiring some rather complex propositional truths as fundamental requirements that must be heard and understood by the lost in order to receive eternal life. The unsaved must not only believe in the object of our salvation - Jesus - for eternal life but must have an understanding of the basis by which Jesus is able to save us. This is a rather sophisticated intellectual process that is required and I would like to draw your attention for a moment to some parallels that I think might be instructive.

Imagine for a moment with me that we are part of the mass of Israelites who are wandering in the wilderness and you and I have just experienced a horrifying plague of vipers which have suddenly come into our encampment and we along with countless others have been bitten by these poisonous reptiles. We are getting sicker by the minute and hundreds lie dying when the word comes around that Moses will raise a bronze serpent on a pole in the middle of the camp and if anyone will just look at that bronze serpent he or she will be healed from the bite of the vipers and will not die… Suppose I said to you: “Now listen Joe, I don’t get it - this doesn’t make much sense – we just have to look at a bronze serpent on a pole and we will recover and live? What could that possibly have to do with our condition and our recovery? There has to be more to this story… We need to know where Moses got this idea. We need to know how this can possibly work cause I’ve never heard of such a thing… Maybe the heat is getting to Moses so let’s go see if we can get the scoop on what’s behind this bronze serpent on a pole thing!”…

Now if you’re honest you are probably thinking how ridiculous! Just look at the bronze serpent and then if you must you can check into the details later dude!! I would submit to you that the Israelites probably didn’t have many if any of the details. All they likely knew through that bleary mental fog and the searing pain that was spreading to the nerves of their dying bodies was that Moses said to look at the bronze serpent and whoever does will live – and that was enough…

What I’m getting at should be clear. We are living in a day when just as they did in Jesus day, some of our most learned and best religious men can complicate and obscure the grand simplicity of God’s plan, purpose and mission. If there is one thing that the scriptures and our experience should teach us - it is man’s natural propensity in his intellectual arrogance and pride to create clouds of sophisticated arguments and requirements that replace the magnificent simplicity of God’s wise plan. We see this very notably in Lordship theology and now we see a similar mentality emerging within the FG camp. I would suggest that it is spawned by the same spirit which wars against the mind of man to blind his understanding of the simplicity of God’s saving grace. It is the same spirit which permeated the legalism of the Pharisees of Jesus day and blinded them to who He was causing Jesus to ask them repeatedly “why don’t you believe me?”…

Much like the admittedly ridiculous example in my story we have a group of theological sophisticates who say that without a full understanding of the basis for how Jesus is able to save men the lost cannot be saved – i.e., reduced to the bare minimum, just looking to Jesus in faith for eternal life is not enough. Despite the clear parallel that Jesus gives Nicodemus in John 3 between the simple look of the Israelites to the bronze serpent in that wilderness camp for life – to believing in him for eternal life.

Even though Jesus alludes to His future crucifixion Nicodemus would not have understood that detail – only that Jesus was saying that He was here, visibly for all to see much like that bronze serpent was so that “whoever believes in Him, may have eternal life.”

Disturbing news concerning the new book by Dr. J.B. Hixson, Director of the Free Grace Alliance

2008-06-10T22:12:00.001-07:00

Recently, Dr. J.B. Hixson, director of the Free Grace Alliance (FGA), published a book on the gospel which contains inaccurate statements concerning consistent Free Grace theology. The material includes misrepresentations, falsehoods, and misquotes. I may in the future document these things word for word from his book, showing the lack of care that he took in constructing his criticism.

As you all know, I spoke to Dr. Earl Radmacher at length a few weeks ago about the state of affairs in the Free Grace theology movement. In the course of our discussion, Dr. Radmacher told me that he was asked to write the foreword to Dr. Hixson's book, and, he added, that he was ambivalent to do so. Since we were discussing issues concerning Free Grace theology, he stated quite confidently and certainly that Dr. Hixson's book did not mention whatsoever the current controversy that has been instigated by a very small, yet vocal, sectarian branch of Free Grace theology. In spite of his reasoned hesitancy to write the foreword, he did so.

Dr. Earl Radmacher was the Founding President of the Free Grace Alliance. During our discussion, he mentioned that when the antagonists from Duluth started publishing their offensive articles that he wrote them to object to several things. In addition to criticizing their ill-conceived methods and misrepresentations of consistent Free Grace theology, he stated that he does not believe that Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, or the Grace Evangelical Society preaches a 'crossless' gospel at all! Dr. Radmacher thinks that such a designation is flat-out disingenuous and inaccurate.

The following is taken from Dr. Earl Radmacher's book, Salvation, Word Publishing, in the Acknowledgments section, pg ix:

Exegetically I am indebted to the exegetical expertise and hermeneutical care of Zane Hodges, whose humility before the Word of God and untiring diligence continues to be a model for me of "a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). There have been times when I questioned his conclusions, but further investigation usually demonstrated his superior wisdom.

These are high praises of Zane Hodges by Dr. Earl Radmacher! Dr. Radmacher expresses his indebtedness to Zane for his "exegetical expertise and hermeneutical care". Zane is characterized by Earl as one who "rightly divid[es] the word of truth" and one whose "humility before the Word of God" is a model for him.

In the text of his book, Dr. Radmacher reserves over half of a written page, 22 sentences, for a block of text written by Zane Hodges. The exact content of this excerpt is Zane's explanation of saving faith, particularly what it means to soteriologically believe that Jesus is the Christ. The interesting thing is that the premise of Zane's argument found in the text that Dr. Radmacher chose to use is the point of contention for those select few sectarians who have hoisted division upon the Free Grace world.

In the text of the book authored by J.B. Hixson, director of the Free Grace Alliance, J.B. makes disparaging comments about Zane Hodges. He even goes so far as to state that Zane Hodges preaches a false gospel!

If Dr. Earl Radmacher knew that such material would be included in J.B.'s book he would never have written the Foreword to it!

Just two weeks ago I spoke to Dr. Earl Radmacher concerning issues facing Free Grace theology, and just two weeks ago he was unaware that such material was in J.B. Hixson's book on the gospel that he wrote the foreword to! Dr. Radmacher stated ever so matter-of-factly that no talk of objections to the consistent Free Grace theology of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, and the Grace Evangelical Society was in J.B.'s book!

But lo, and behold! The book is now being published, containing glowing endorsements by Tom Stegall and Dennis Rokser, two of the prime instigators in the destruction of Free Grace theology. Additional content has been added that Dr. Radmacher was unaware of, material that disparages his friend and biblical model of Scriptural precision and care, Zane Hodges, going so far as to state that Zane preaches a false gospel! Is this not ‘red meat’ intended partly to encourage and satisfy the Duluthian Antagonists?

I called Dr. J.B. Hixson today on the phone. I told him that I had a discussion with Dr. Earl Radmacher and that Earl was quite certain that J.B.'s book did not contain a whit of objection to Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, or the GES. I therefore asked him if the manuscript that was given to Earl to read before he wrote the foreword contained the material which accuses Zane Hodges of preaching a false gospel. He bluntly told me that it was none of my business!

Readers of Free Grace Theology Blog:

Dr. Earl Radmacher would have never endorsed a book that contained material condemning his friend and mentor, Zane Hodges. Obviously, Dr. J.B. Hixson knew this! The only logical explanation that can be inferred by this information is that Dr. J.B. Hixson, director of the Free Grace Alliance, purposely kept Dr. Radmacher in the dark concerning this material! Can you come up with another explanation?

Why would J.B. Hixson wish to have Dr. Earl Radmacher endorse and write the forward to his book? Why has there been such a great attempt on his part to get Earl to speak at FGA functions now? It is obvious that Dr. J.B. Hixson is trying to consolidate a strong anti-GES Free Grace party in the FGA by showcasing Dr. Radmacher, a long time advocate and beloved patriarch of Free Grace theology (yet whose position closely parallels Zane Hodges and the GES!) to the Free Grace public. Thus by close association, it appears to the public, ipso facto, that Dr. Radmacher sides with the Duluthian faction, which in fact, he is opposed to!

If in fact Dr. J.B. Hixson has purposely kept Dr. Radmacher in the dark concerning material that he knew Dr. Radmacher would find offensive (and would thus keep Earl from endorsing his book and writing the foreword) he is guilty of a gross deception and is worthy and in need of strong admonishment! In this, and in email correspondences that I have had with him, and in phone conversations, I have not found Dr. J.B. Hixson to be of sufficient maturity and discernment to be director of the Free Grace Alliance. It is because of this that he will receive my vote of No Confidence.

If in fact this was a deliberate deception on Dr. J.B. Hixson’s part, he should step down from the leadership of the FGA. Such behavior is not commensurate with the responsibilities and spiritual duties of leadership necessary for a director of the Free Grace Alliance.

In the frequently asked questions (faq) section of the Free Grace Alliance we find this in answer to the question, “How is the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) different from other organizations?”:

The FGA is seeking to unite leaders, churches, and organizations which affirm the gospel of grace. The structure of the Alliance is such that the membership owns the organization through SHARED LEADERSHIP. We at FGA want to CONNECT, ENCOURAGE and EQUIP free grace leaders, churches, and organizations...to STRATEGIZE TOGETHER about how to unite and promote grace to our needy world.

As the director of the Free Grace Alliance, Dr. J.B. Hixson is mandated to “connect, [and] encourage” free grace people, and to “strategize together how to unite”. He is sorely lacking in these principles. On the contrary, he is using the directorship of the Free Grace Alliance to divide Free Grace theology asunder, and in the process, is making a public spectacle and mockery of it!

Dr. J.B. Hixson: What are your strategies for uniting the Free Grace Theology camp? Let me tell you something, J.B., condemning and anathematizing your Free Grace brothers who preach the substitutionary death and bodily resurrection of Christ and faith alone in Christ alone apart from works is not the way to inspire unity!

No longer are many who would consider themselves Free Grace advocates speaking against Lordship Salvation. No! They rather are devouring other Free Grace people! It is sad and deplorable! Free Grace brothers are not our enemies! The enemy is Lordship Salvation in its many guises!

Recently Dr. Hixson stated in a newsletter, “I appreciate these men [John Piper, Mark Dever, Al Mohler] and their passion to speak out against sin.” Frankly, what does it matter if these people speak out against sin but preach a non-saving message of works-righteousness? What does it profit a man to repent from sin, reform his life, and then end up in hell? I do not appreciate the teachers of Lordship Salvation. They are false prophets and false teachers who lead men and women into destruction. But does he lift up his fellow Free Grace brothers who associate with the Grace Evangelical Society? No. He stipulates to his FGA speakers that they aren’t even to mention Zane, Bob, or the GES.

Zane Hodges is a biblical scholar par excellence. He has remained unmarried, devoting himself to the interpretation of the Word. His accomplishments are many! But the lack of respect and appreciation for this man, who taught at Dallas Theological Seminary for 27 years, co-edited a version of the Majority Text, wrote nearly a dozen very helpful and exegetically sound Free Grace books, and devoted a large part of his life to expose the dangerous teachings of Lordship Salvation, is appalling and disturbing!

Free Grace theology shares a rich history and theological heritage. All of us preach Christ and him crucified as the only basis for eternal life. All of us preach that Christ was raised for our justification. All of us preach faith in Jesus Christ as the sole condition for eternal life. Dr. J.B. Hixson does not seem to grasp this, for if he did, he could begin constructing roads rather than burning bridges. If he did, he would be facilitating strategizing sessions on how to unite rather than publicly denouncing fellow Free Grace advocates.

The Free Grace Theology public deserves to know if the Director of the Free Grace Alliance is guilty of deception. The whole controversy can be quelled if Dr. J.B. Hixson will come out and say that the manuscript that he gave Dr. Radmacher contained the disputed material and that somehow Earl missed that section. If he did not include this material to Dr. Radmacher, it would be some oversight!

It is publicly known that Dr. Earl Radmacher does not believe that Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, or the GES preaches a false gospel. As a matter of fact, Earl holds Zane in the highest of esteem, calling him a “model” for him, and his soteriology closely parallels Zane’s! It is a fact that Earl was certain that no such material was in J.B.’s book just two weeks ago. It is a fact that if Earl would have known that Zane was so disparaged, and condemned as preaching a false gospel, that he would have never written a foreword to J.B.’s book. It is a fact that J.B. included that material unbeknownst to Dr. Radmacher, possibly on purpose keeping him in the dark.

This is not a scandal that will go away without being dealt with. Unless J.B. Hixson comes out and states something public, either exonerating or implicating himself, stepping down from the executive committee of the FGA, it will not be forgotten.

We must have confidence in our leaders. J.B.’s acts of divisiveness, un-fair representation of other Free Grace brothers, deception (as found in our email conversation) and potential scandal as identified in this post, does not inspire a whit of confidence in his leadership.

Free Grace Theology is under attack!

2008-06-08T17:14:00.000-07:00

There has been much ado coming from a very small few vocal objectors to the GES. They state that Free Grace theology is fractured, and they state other misinformation and out-right lies, which will be documented in a post coming discussing the sentiments of Dr. Earl Radmacher. The fact of the matter is that dissention is very small in the Free Grace world and on the whole, unity and charity are desired.

Charles Ryrie, Dr. Earl Radmacher (founding president of the FGA), Dr. Fred Chay (on the FGA executive council), Dr. Fred Lybrand (on the FGA executive council), Dr. Stephen R. Lewis (on the FGA exectutive council), Dr. Charlie Bing (on the FGA executive council) do not think that the Zane Hodges or the GES teaches heresy. They may have some issues with certain doctrines within the family of Free Grace theology, but consider Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges as Free Grace brothers and advocates worthy of respect.

Free Grace theology is under attack by a vocal minority! These in the minority do not have doctorates or have had much sway in Free Grace circles. They are obsessed with disputes and arguments.

One of the very few who have a problem with the GES and consistent Free Grace Theology wrote recently:

The real question is not: "What does Radmacher say?" but "What does the Scripture say?" (Rom.4:3; Gal. 4:30). If the risen Savior disagrees with your "promise-only" position (Jn.2:22,19:35, 20:19-21:14), does it really matter what a man named Earl Radmacher says?

First, I disagree with this person. It does matter what Radmacher says. He is a well-respected figure in the Free Grace community, also one that has experience and terminal degrees. His advice and opinion, although falling infinitely short of scripture, ought to be taken into consideration! He is a brother, and elder, and a Christian statesman who has taken up the banner of Free Grace theology! We ought not to disregard his testimony with a wave of the hand! I still do intend to write some of what we discussed some weeks ago.

Second, I do insist that we ought to listen to the risen Savior and His apostles.

"If anyone... does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ... he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men..." --The Apostle Paul

"You have the words of everlasting life!" --The Apostle Peter speaking to the Lord Jesus Christ

"The words that I speak to you are spirit and they are life." --The Lord Jesus Christ

"I solemnly assert to you, whoever believes in Me has everlasting life." --The Lord Jesus Christ

"I am the Bread of Life. He who comes to me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." --The Lord Jesus Christ

I consent to the prima facie rendering of Jesus' words in the context in which He uttered them.

The Duluthian faction has been "obsessed with disputes".

They are my Free Grace brothers. But they are erring.

The questions are not over what I believe, but how I do evangelism. Let it be known here on this thread that my mandate is not to do evangelism but to make disciples. If any products of my evangelism do not endure, or proceed into heresy, it is a problem for them in the sight of God. At any rate, no sound church will welcome them.

I preach the cross and resurrection. I preach faith in the real Jesus Christ. If someone professes faith in Jesus, I endeavor to plug them in and get them discipled. If they end up bailing, or creating heresy, that is their problem and God will sort it out. If they grow and mature, then I have done my job. And I do not rest until they grow and mature!

Evangelism is only a means to an end. My purpose is to herald the proclamation of the King whereby He invites all to be companions with Him and sit with Him at His banqueting table in the Kingdom. But such requires two conditions to be met:

1) Faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ for eternal life
AND
2) Sanctification and endurance in confession of Jesus Christ until the end.

As such, I preach sanctification, I preach doctrine, I teach the wonderful truths of our Savior, I encourage, admonish, and exhort!

I want unity in the Free Grace world. The discord is being used of Satan to reak all kinds of havoc! Their problem with me is how I do evangelism. But the bottom line in my evangelism is with a view to discipleship! I am not out there looking solely for professions of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ! I am seeking to make disciples of Christ who will love Him, grow and mature in their understanding of the Savior, and take up His challenge to persevere until the end, keeping their garments unsoiled.

Those from Duluth need to see things from another perspective. My insistence that I preach the death and resurrection, which I will do as long as their is breath in me, and my determination to make disciples, fully instructed in both doctrine and the ways of righteousness, should suffice them!

Any who would turn away from discipleship will not be a problem for the churches nor a blight on the glorious message and gratuitous promise of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am not satisfied with a profession of faith! I will not rest until those who profess the name of Jesus depart from iniquity and until those who profess the name of Christ consent to the doctrines which accord with godliness.

Properly understood, there should not be a single Free Grace brother out there who should continue to dispute this!

The disputes have caused "envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings," even to which I have become involved in such. For this I genuinely apologize!

Brothers and sisters in the Free Grace world, I am sorry for my attitudes and behaviors that have increased to more ungodliness.

I preach the Christ crucified, I preach the Christ resurrected, I preach the deity of Christ, and I preach faith alone into the bonafide Jesus Christ alone for eternal life, apart from works of any kind. I endeavor to make disciples of Christ, fully prepared for every good work and fully instructed in the docrtines of Christology. I will not rest until I die, preaching Christ, and Him crucified! I will not rest until everyone who names the name of Christ will be fully instructed.

I am reaching out my hand to those of Duluth and those associated with their concerns. I am your Free Grace brother, sharing a rich heritage and common theology with you!

Let their be peace so we can join with each other proclaiming Christ's saving work, in preaching faith alone in Christ alone, and in informing others against the errors of Lordship Salvation!

All of you who are sympathetic with my concerns for Free Grace theology, please pray! Pray for unity, pray for peace, which can only be had when TRUE understanding has been accomplished! Pray for understanding! The GES and I are on the same page as those from Duluth! We want strong advocates of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! We want to proclaim the cross of Christ and His death for sins! We want to preach resurrection from the dead and new resurrection life!

Join with me brothers!

A conversation that Me and Matthew had today on IM

2008-05-30T14:53:00.000-07:00

I will be shortly declaring some of the things that I discussed with Earl Radmacher concerning the current state of Free Grace theology. I just haven't gotten around to writing it yet! So be patient. Until then, here is a very helpful (and slightly edited) conversation that I had today with Matthew of This is a Cult. Want to Join? and other blogs. Enjoy!

matthew says:
Hi Antonio

Antonio says:
Hi Matt!!!

matthew says:
How are you doing.

Antonio says:
Oh, I have an upbeat attitude about the future of Free Grace theology.

matthew says:
That is good to hear. How so?

Antonio says:
The dissenters will be relegated to the category of those who are obssessed with disputes. They are a very small faction. And the Lord will do His work. The Lord is faithful, Matt, and His word will go out. Whatever happens, I am over the LM's and JP's and Roksers and Stegalls of the world.

matthew says:
What about the… Miles Stanfords of the world? They might not obsess as much, but they dont like refined FG either.

Antonio says:
Miles Stanford, I believe by this time, has already had remedial courses in soteriology and dispensationalism, so he is no problem anymore.

matthew says:
Do you think most Dispensationalists would be willing to give the refined FG position a hearing?

Antonio says:
I believe so. But the thing is, "progress of revelation" is a dead weight and albatross on the shoulders of many dispensationalists. They have that on the brain. But when explained that it was Jesus Christ himself who dictated the content, in the second to the last book written in the canon, only those beholden to their theology and not open minded will have a problem. I mean, Wouldn't John, who was an apostle, which the church was founded on, know, by the close of the century, that additional Pauline content was required? I would not want to be in the position of any dispensationalist who would state that John's gospel explicitly written for evangelistic purposes was deficient.

matthew says:
I hope you are right. Yes, the tradionalist position makes little sense. I am enjoying Gregory Boyd's book 'God at War.'

Antonio says:
And why not John's gospel, Matthew?

matthew says:
It is really fascinating and makes a lot of sense.

Antonio says:
Is not every treatise from Paul written to saints?

matthew says:
Yes, the Traditionalist has a real problem here.

Antonio says:
Why wouldn't God write a love letter expressly given to share with man how he might have peace with God, everlasting life, salvation from condemnation, and entrance into the kingdom?

matthew says:
Yes.

Antonio says:
I don't know who is going to do it. I don't know if it will be me someday, but a very indepth study needs to be done on the word "gospel" in Paul's literature.

matthew says:
Yes, I think so.

Antonio says:
It is so clear to me now that that word does not ever mean "an exact statement denoting the God-mandated contents of saving faith that must be believed before one can be regenerated". Also, where is it ever stated by these people, who do believe as much, where the content is explicitley defined?

matthew says:
Yes. Strange how people seem to have difficulty seeing this.

Antonio says:
Matthew, we all took it on tradition. I did it! I am guilty!

matthew says:
Yes. I think revising the notion of what (people suppose) the Gospel is seems one of the best things about NT Wright's theology. Not that I am a fan of his.

Antonio says:
It is abundantly clear to me that someone could believe that Jesus died on the cross for sins and rose again bodily from the dead and never "believe in" (pisteou eis) Jesus!

Antonio says:
Explain about Wright

matthew says:
Oh, he rejects the view that the Gospel is all about just being saved from eternal condemnation. He sees it in much broader terms.

Antonio says:
Ahh… Matthew, I do not wish to pat myself on the back, but I have made the concept of "believing in" Jesus more simpler and more concise than any author or theologian or armchair blogger has ever. When the simplicity of it struck me, I was like "why is it that it has never been expounded like this before?” Obviously there has been alot of what I have said (esp. from Chafer, Ryrie, and Hodges), but nothing as precise as my explanation that "believing in" someone is nothing but believing a proposition that consists of one's certain reliance on someone for something specific, or in other words, trust in a person for some benefit.

matthew says:
I think you have done really well. Have you written anything for any journals? I am really impressed with the trouble you have taken in expounding this issue.

Antonio says:
So many people, like Daniel of Doulogos, have so erred in their take on faith!

matthew says:
yes

Antonio says:
What is this "personal" appropriation? What does that objectively look like? I see some merit to thinking in this way (in other words, eternal life must be received by oneself, not by another or communally), but they have defined faith as something greater than simply being convinced something is true.

matthew says:
The law in England defines theft as 'dishonest appropriation.' Just imagine a thief telling a judge it was not 'personal appropriation'!

Antonio says:
Acording to him, it has to have some volitional and emotional aspects. I really love what Clark said, that belief in the sober reality that one has 5 fingers is as much faith as being convinced of some shattering news

matthew says:
Very true.

Antonio says:
I have thought about it. I can't think of any colloquial or social use of the phrase "believe in" (someone or something) that does not fit my definition of said phrase. When does that articulation EVER denote some additionally required understanding (such as ontological or personal considerations) other than that which is explicitely or implicitly supplied by the context wherein it is used?

matthew says:
I think you are right.

Antonio says:
Jesus said "whoever believes in Me"… I did this: I put the phrase "believe in me" on the lips of a thousand different people in a thousand different circumstances. You do the same and you will find that what is being referred to is faith in a proposition which denotes certain and absolute reliance upon an individual for a particular benefit of some kind or another. Wow! I feel that I am articulating this in a clear and beneficial way. I should take this conversation and post it on UoG.

matthew says:
Yes. Can I ask you a question?

Antonio says:
I dare say you should. Please do.

matthew says:
It is about eternal life rather than faith.

Antonio says:
If I can answer it I will. I am shaking with anticipation! Would you let your mind be known?

matthew says:
Jesus said that His opponents think that they have eternal life in the Scriptures. What does He mean? Did they think that they had eternal security?

Antonio says:
Jesus used the phrase in that instance with the general culturally understood sense. Remember the rich youn ruler? He did not ask the question, "What must I do to receive eternal life as a free gift?" He asked, “What must I do to INHERIT eternal life.” The pharisees and scribes thought that they subscribed to Moses in such an exacting way that they merited the privilege of "inheriting" eternal life. They thought that by their adherence to Moses that they were deserving of eternal life. The culturally understood concept of "eternal life" at that time was of one meriting the opportunity of being in the kingdom.

matthew says:
Our Lord was not affirming that they believed they posessed eternal life then?

Antonio says:
Your question immediately made me think about the Calvinists. They believe they have eternal life by evidence (primarily fruit inspection) married with supposition. We know we have eternal life, are certain of it, because of the testimony of God through His Son. He was saying that they believed that they, because of the preponderance of evidence before their eyes, were WORTHY of eternal life.

matthew says:
So that culturally understood concept of eternal life has no bearing on what our Lord means by the term 'eternal life'?

Antonio says:
Yes it does! because the cultural understanding has truths to it. It was just an insufficient understanding. Eternal life IS merited, but not before it is received as a free gift!

matthew says:
Does our Lord' s comment about His opponents not imply present posession of eternal life?

Antonio says:
I think that such an understanding would be reading too much into it: in other words, the present possession of eternal life that we know about through, particularly, the gospel of John. When the rich young ruler asked his question, he did not ask "What things" but "what thing." He thought perhaps that he could call upon the assistance of his wealth to do an act of charity and be assured of future inheritance in the kingdom. What the rich young ruler wanted was what his concept of eternal life, and this was riches and inheritance in a literal eternal, eschatological, Israel-centered kingdom. He thought he could be presently assured of a future position in the kingdom. Of course, this is certainly what we understand eternal life to be; but it is much more than that! It is the present possession of the divine life within us NOW! So their understanding had correct ideas, but was insufficient.

matthew says:
What would you say are the key texts for establishing present posession of divine life NOW? I would just like you to clarify the key texts on present posession of eternal life.

Antonio says:
Well your last statement is a little different than your question. Present possession of eternal life is stated in many places, but discussion of the divine life, presently held is a bit less frequent.

matthew says:
I suppose it is.

Antonio says:
I think my answer to your question would be John 1:12, 13 and John 3:3ff. He gave us the right to be children of God, being born agian not of the will of man but of God. Being born from God rather explicitly shares with us that the moment we become children of God, being born of God, that what is born of God (our regenerated immaterial nature) is properly understood as the divine nature.

matthew says:
So in being born, we enter into a new life. Eternal life.

Antonio says:
Yes, such life, the divine life given to us, must properly be understood as eternal life, because of such is the life of God Himself.

matthew says:
Is sonship in John 1 understood in a different sense to sonship in Romans 8?

Antonio says:
Oh yes

matthew says:
This sonship is not related to heirship.

Antonio says:
The first thing to realize is that authors use words differently. One must first determine usage of words from author’s first in their immediate epistle or gospel, secondly from their writings, and thirdly from other author’s works.

matthew says:
I am piling on the questions tonight! … Yes, they do.

Antonio says:
In John 1 the word used is "tekna", or children. In Romans 8, the word is "uios" or full grown sons.

matthew says:
Wow, big difference. So receiving power is immediate. On the new birth.

Antonio says:
Like in Romans 8:14 "The ones led by the spirit are 'full grown, mature' sons of God (uios). But scroll down… in Romans 8:17 we find, "if children (tekna) then heirs of God" meaning only born again ones, those simply with the new nature and justified at the bar of God. The next part of the verse gives stringent conditions for co-glory and co-heirship, viz. suffering with Him! Let it be known that in Paul, the division isn't as hard and fast as John makes it, but the distinction IS there.

matthew says:
Yes.

Antonio says:
Sometimes Paul uses uios as a general designation for born again ones, but that is understandable. Often words are used interchangeably until it is necessary to disinguish between nuances of two "synonyms".

matthew says:
I think perhaps these finer points in Romans are missed because it is viewed as being primarily about justification.

Antonio says:
"Those led by the Spirit of God are Uios!" Why use tekna 3 verses later? Because Paul was making distinctions!

matthew says:
right… I heard a sermon on Romans 8 a couple of weeks ago that did not pick up on any of these distinctions.

Antonio says:
Listen, one cannot be led unless one follows. Following the Spirit is a condition of being a full grown son who receives with such a designation a right to the privileges of full-grown son status: iow, heirship. Now whether one recieves the lion's share of first-born status or of lower sonship is not in view. One must be viewed as a mature, full-grown son in order to receive the benefits of this kind of heirship.

matthew says:
Right

Antonio says:
And remember, their is an heirship qualified for simply by being a "teknon" (child, Ro 8:17). This is an heirship that is unconditional. But there is another heirship that is merited by adherence to the demands or wishes of the benefactor. So thus two nuances included in the one idea of "eternal life". The Jews of Jesus' time seemingly only privy to one.

matthew says:
Two kinds of heirship?

Antonio says:
One merited and one unconditional. By virtue of being a teknon (child), one is heir to resurrection to life, only to name one benefit of this unconditional heirship.

matthew says:
That makes a lot of sense.

Antonio says:
I wish that I had an editor. I dare say that I have no time nor inclination to edit my own writings into a book form. I surely have enough material to make several book on several topics

matthew says:
You should write a journal article.

Antonio says:
I really liked one of my latest but simple articles, "however much or little they may know" or something similar to that title. You did not comment however.

matthew says:
It was very good.

Antonio says:
Imagine being persuaded by the simple testimony of an adulerterous and immoral woman who merely stated "He told me all things I ever did" and "Could this be the Christ" (obviously with the content that he offered water that once taken one would never thirst again) but still this is significant! On no other testimony than a sinful woman, many believe in Jesus (pisteou eis)! How more simple could it be?

matthew says:
Impressive

After this we talked about my second favorite subject after the bible and God: food...

I hope that this conversation has been beneficial for you.

Have a good day!

Free Grace Theology is a Great Concern of Mine

2008-05-27T16:34:00.000-07:00

Free Grace theology is my passion! I am a staunch defender of it. I am a shameless and unapologetic advocate of it. I have been engrossed for years plumbing its depths in the Sacred Scriptures and in the writings of those who proclaim it. As such, I am saddened when my Free Grace brothers and sisters charge me with heresy. I share a rich theological heritage with these people! I enjoy the writings of Charles Ryrie, L.S. Chafer, John Walvoord, Tom Constable, Earl Racmacher, Charlie Bing, Dave Anderson, as well as Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, Joseph Dillow, Erich Sauer, and G.H. Lang. I don’t agree with everything each one of these men promotes. But I have learned great things from them and hold them in high esteem for the work they have done in the cause of Christ.

Recently, I decided to write Dr. Earl Radmacher and share with him some of my concerns.

What is your opinion on the dark cloud that a few fundamentalist free gracers sprouting from Duluth have hoisted upon the Free Grace world?

This is my opinion: Free Grace theology advocates share a rich heritage and common theology. There are some differences in opinion on how one is to do evangelism, but we all agree to the major theological tenets of evangelical and orthodox Christianity! It is most unfortunate that such discord is being propogated among the brethren!

Charges are being trumped up to such an extent that a legitmate nuance and position of Free Grace theology coming from Zane Hodges and the GES has been demonized as heresy!

I support Zane Hodges financially. I support the GES with my membership. I am a member of the FGA. I also espouse the particular position of Zane Hodges. I have a couple of blogs which I have written 200+ articles on Free Grace theology, many having to do with the nuanced position of the GES. Because of this, I have been stigmatized by some who consider themselves Free Grace as a heretic!

These people from Duluth have so poisoned the well with their innaccurate, pejorative, and Christ-dishonoring rhetoric, trumping up charges and demonizing people, that good people in Free Grace leadership, who know that Zane and the GES don't preach heresy, are afraid to publicly fellowship with them in fear that it may have (this is only my opinion) financial repercussions when donors and supporters, who have been poisoned against the GES, find out.

I was perusing the internet today and found some articles that Miles J. Stanford wrote "against" you. He discussed your correspondences with him that had to do with the Bema seat. You brought up names such as Chitwood, Lang, Wilson, and Govett. Now, I do not agree with all of these men in everything, certainly not on millenial exclusion, but they have (especially Lang) very scholastic and persuasive arguments concerning the Bema! I love reading these men. I am on board with you concerning the Bema. But men from Duluth and Middletown state that such considerations are heresy.

Furthermore, Brother Stegall in his articles speak against Zane's view of repentance which is found in an appendix of your book taken from a Bob Wilkin book!

You also quote Zane Hodges liberally in your book, esp pages 126-127, in which Zane is identifying the core consideration of what these Duluthians criticize: that salvation comes by believing that Jesus is the Christ, with the content that as the Christ He is the Guarantor of everlasting life to the believer in Him.

Please tell me what you think about all of this! I am so disheartened over all the politics! I have heard rumors that the Duluthian faction of the FG community has made threats and demands of the FGA executive committee.

I am an advocate of Free Grace Theology as I believe those from Duluth are. Why is it that we cannot coexist and why is it that Zane Hodges and the GES are being trumped up as heretics? Please advise. What do you think about all of this discord being instigated by a select small few sectarians?

The following day Dr. Earl Radmacher gave me a call and we talked about these things for almost 2 hours. His answers were a voice of reason and of studied and scholarly wisdom. He addressed all my concerns that I had written him and, furthermore, all that I verbally addressed him with. On the phone I asked for his permission to publish some of the statements that he made over the phone. He agreed. I was so thankful! I have talked to several key FG leaders who do not believe that the GES nor Zane Hodges teaches heresy, but who do not wish to come out publically to declare so. I believe that the are fearing the consequences of men rather than judging with righteous judgment in the sight of God. But not Dr. Earl Radmacher. He is fair and balanced and speaks the truth in love.

Within the next few days I will share with you all our conversation. Stay tuned.

Your Free Grace host,

Antonio da Rosa

'however little or much one may know about Him'

2008-05-25T14:54:00.000-07:00

Trust, however, implies reliance, commitment, and confidence in the objects... that one is trusting. An element of commitment must be present in trusting Christ for salvation, but it is a commitment to Him, His promise, and His ability to give eternal life to those who believe. The object of faith or trust is the Lord Jesus Christ, however little or much one may know about Him. The issue about which we trust Him is His ability to forgive our sins and take us to heaven.

This quote is from Charles Ryrie in his book, “So Great Salvation” (on page 111-12 or 121, depending on which version you have) and it is agreeable to me. I would personally word things a bit differently than he does. I believe that Charles Ryrie has fallen into the trap of the two-step, supposing that "trust" is a superior word to "believe".

What makes saving faith saving, folks? It is not some extra element added to belief or assent that makes it "super faith". What makes saving faith saving is the object, the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Lord Jesus Christ has eternally inexhuastable riches and grace at His disposal. Furthermore, He is qualified and able to eternally save by virtue of His deity, death and resurrection. To add to this, He is willing to give eternal life to all who simply believe in Him.

When it comes to conversations in social settings, I tell people that the two subjects that I enjoy discussing the most are 1) things pertaining to God and the Bible and 2) food. My wife is the Executive Training Coordinator for a chain of gourmet seafood restaurants in San Diego where she is in charge of all the front-end training in their 12 restaurants. As an executive she gets 50% off her party’s bill. It doesn’t matter if it is we two or a group of 15, we get 50% off. I love that, let me tell you friends! I can have gourmet food at half the price! I can get a dozen oysters on the half shell for the price of 6. I am in hog heaven. But I digress. Anyway, on to an illustration.

Let us say that I was walking down the street and someone offered me a free gourmet meal at Tavern on the Green. If I were persuaded that this man could get me a free meal, and I had the time, I surely would take him up on his offer. Something about the man must convince me that he is telling the truth or I would not believe him. Let us say that he was standing out front of the restaurant called Tavern on the Green and what it was that persuaded me to believe in him, that he was authorized, able, and willing to give me a meal absolutely free, was the location where I found him and the clothing he was wearing. Let me explain. He was standing out in front of Tavern on the Green and was wearing a nice, crisp, dress shirt with the “Tavern on the Green” logo, and black, well creased dress slacks.

What persuaded me that this man could give me an absolutely free meal were his physical location and his attire. That is all! I didn’t know anything else about this person but that. But that was all that it took to persuade me that he was telling me the truth and could give me a free meal. I went in and enjoyed a free meal. I did come to find out later that this man was the owner of the restaurant, and some other pertinent facts about him.

Lets rework this illustration a bit. Let us now say that this man who was offering the free meal stated that he was the owner of the restaurant, up front, and explained (after showing his ownership credentials of some form or another) that the restaurant was celebrating its 25th year in business and that he wanted to grace several people with a free meal. I would know much more about this person that was offering this free gift. Still, I went in and had a wonderful time eating a free gourmet meal.

In both of these illustrations, I relied upon the man out front of the restaurant for the free gift he was offering, however little or much I may have known about him. Charles Ryrie states “The object of faith or trust is the Lord Jesus Christ, however little or much one may know about Him.” I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. When the lost read of Jesus in the gospel of John stating that He is the Guarantor of eternal life and resurrection to the believer, and believe in Him as such, Christ saves them, however little or much one may know about Him.

And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him (pisteuo eis) because of the word of the woman who testified, "He told me all that I ever did." – John 4:39 (NKJV)

Many of the Samaritans of Sychar “believed in” (pisteuw eis) Jesus based solely on the testimony of the immoral and adulterous woman, who stated, “Can this be the Christ?” and said, “He told me all that I ever did” (see Jn 4:29). They did not know much about Jesus, but the text clearly shows that they exercised saving faith, for it used John’s unique technical phraseology which denotes saving faith everywhere else in his gospel: pisteou eis.

In my first illustration, little did I know that the man offering the free gift of a gourmet meal was the owner of the restaurant. But I believed in him and got a free meal. It turns out that the reason that he was qualified to give such a wonderful gift was that he was the owner who was celebrating 25 years of ownership of that restaurant and was inclined to do something special for a few people.

The one who is uniquely identified as Jesus of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth, descending from the line of David, and hailing from the tribe of Judah:

1) is God in the flesh
2) died a substitutionary death on the cross for the sins of the world
3) rose again bodily from the dead

In addition to this, He performed great miracles, raised the dead, exercised compassion on the lost, preached good news, taught about God, never sinned, etc.

But Jesus also did something else. He solemnly testified to the fact that He gives life to whomever He wills (Jn 5:21). As such, He determined to give everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him (Jn 1:12; 3:15-16; 5:24; 6:35-40, 47; 11:25-26). Jesus has the words of eternal life (Jn 6:68)! He said, “The words that I speak to you are spirit and they are life!” (Jn 6:63).

Jesus makes the radical claim (!!):

“Most solemnly I assert to you, whoever believes in Me has everlasting life!” (Jn 6:47)

Jesus is no liar. He has the words of eternal life. His words are spirit and they are life. He has offered the world an absolutely free gift: eternal life, and has stipulated but one condition for its reception: believing in Him. He will never fail anyone who trusts in Him for that which He freely offers. Jesus can never fall short of His promise.

Whether I knew it or not, the man in my illustration was the owner of the restaurant. I believed him in his offer, took him up on it, and he made good. Jesus will always make good on His promise that whosoever believes in Him has eternal life and will be resurrected, “however little or much one may know about Him”.

Checklist Evangelism and Questions about Assurance

2008-05-10T13:54:00.000-07:00

Updated and Revised: May 12, 2008 2:31 PM PST

Reformed Lordship Salvation and Assurance
For Reformed Theology and Lordship Salvation, assurance can never be certain because of where they look for it. The foundation for assurance in LS is threefold, two of which are totally subjective. These pillars, two of which are crumbling, are the word of God, perseverance in faith and works, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. The problem for assurance in Reformed Lordship Salvation has already been documented on this blog extensively. In a nutshell, because one's faith can fail, thus showing he is reprobate, having only exercised a spurious, non-saving faith, one's capacity for assurance can only come as he endures and perseveres in faith and good works, which are the inevitable signs of (and conditions for) eternal life, and ruminates upon their strength. What a roller-coaster of emotion this can generate, in that circumstances in one's life will invariably dictate the degree of one's assurance. Often, adherents to LS are found dangling over the pit of despair, wondering if they have spurious or genuine faith. Such was characteristically the case in the Puritans of time past.

Checklist Evangelism's Quest for Assurance of Salvation
But this post is not going to consider assurance from the perspective of Reformed Lordship Salvation. What I want to look closely at is one's search for assurance in the traditionalistic and inconsistent theology of the checklist evangelists. Many who consider themselves free grace (albeit inconsistently) state that assurance is the birthright of every Christian but that a Christian many not experience assurance the day of their spiritual birth. This, in and of itself, is grievous error, because assurance is of the essential nature of saving faith. Be that as it may, what I am concerned with here is ascertaining exactly where should this individual, who has been evangelized by a checklist evangelist, supposed to go in order to have assurance of their salvation for either the first time or later if he loses it?

These traditionalists will state, correctly, that assurance will only be founded upon the objective word of God (although not all of them will assert that this assurance is certainty, which understanding, too, is in error). But where must they turn to in the Bible in order to find this objective assurance of their eternal well-being?

We must understand that this is a very big problem for them. Let me tell you why. These traditionalists require that the lost become converts to their specific doctrinal statements or creeds as a condition, mandated by God, for eternal life. For example, one well known creedal statement required to be assented to for eternal life goes something like this: 1) Jesus is God, 2) Jesus is man, 3) Jesus died substitutionally for sins, 4) Jesus rose bodily from the dead, 5) Salvation is received by grace through trusting these facts. It must also be noted here that each one of these statements has a number of subpoints which give them context that must also be assented to in their minutia, or one will fail to fulfill their conditions, and the checklist evangelist will not consider such a one saved.

Questions illustrating the problem for checklist evangelists' quest for assurance:

If someone has been evangelized this way, where can he turn to in order to find assurance in the scriptures?

What passages will he have to string together? What exercises in logic will he have to employ?

What will be the steps to find assurance in the objective word of God?

Is there any clear passage or passages that shows for him all of the conditions that he must fulfill and that promises eternal life, justification, or eternal salvation upon actually fulfilling them?

Free Grace Theology, Saving Faith, and Assurance
Consistent Free Grace Theology understands that eternal life is received the moment that one simply places his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. There are no stipulations, provisos, codicils, or strings attached. When one believes in Jesus of Nazareth for eternal life he will never perish but has everlasting life. To substantiate this claim, Consistent Free Grace evangelists turn the lost to such passages as John 3:16, 5:24; 6:35-40, 47; 11:25-26. These passages show in a straightforward, unambiguous, and clear fashion that eternal life and the guarantee against perishing comes to the one who simply believes in Jesus.

But here is the thing. When someone evangelized by a Consistent Free Grace Theology advocate loses his or her assurance for whatever reason, the same scriptures that were introduced to him in evangelism are the same passages that he must turn to in order to find assurance! John 6:47 states, "Solemnly I assert to you, whoever believes in Me has everlasting life." "Believing in" someone is simply trust and reliance upon that person for something specific. In the context of the previously mentioned evangelistic verses, what Jesus is being trusted for and relied upon for is everlasting life. A person knows whether or not they believe Jesus when He solemnly asserts His gratuitous promise and guarantee. The moment that they look to Jesus in faith, who is the Guarantor of eternal life to the believer, they will again find perfect peace and certain assurance (they had it the moment the exercised saving faith, but that is another issue). Why? Because faith is simply being convinced that something is true. If they are convinced that Jesus is telling the truth in His promise then they know, certainly, that they have eternal life, because the possession of such is explicitly guaranteed in His promise. Furthermore, Jesus would be lying if eternal life didn't come simply by taking Him at His word, believing Him in His promise, trusting Him for what He offers, unconditionally, to the lost. [This is a problem, in and of itself, for checklist evangelists, because in a sense, they make Jesus a liar. Jesus makes a solemn assertion that anyone who simply trusts in Him has everlasting life. Checklist evangelists would have someone go to hell who sincerely trusted in Jesus for the gift He offers by faith, yet who was not privy or understanding of their supplemental additions to saving faith, their fundamentalist creeds that they impose on the Lost as God mandated conditions for receiving everlasting life.]

The Roadblocks to Assurance found in Checklist Evangelism
But what of the plight for assurance by the checklist evangelists and those who are evangelized by them? This is crucial to recognize: There is no passage written by Paul, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Jude, James, or the writer of the Hebrews, or any statements by Jesus (recorded for us in the Scriptures) that articulates that eternal life is guaranteed to the one who fulfills the many conditions imposed on the lost by these traditionalists. Where can he turn to for assurance? No scripture(s) line up with his evangelistic experience! If he has to turn to many passages in order to string together some weak support for what he has been told are God mandated requirements for eternal life, how will he be satisfied that he has found them all? Since there are so many conditions and they are never found all in one place, how is he to be sure that he has in reality found all of the doctrines and facts that he must assent to in order to have confidence that he has indeed fulfilled them and so certainly have assurance that he is saved? It is a slippery slope that can lead to great uncertainties.

I already hear some of the objections by the checklist evangelists. They may say that they can turn to passages such as John 3:16 for assurance. But here is the problem for them. John 3:16 states, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." This passage states unequivocally that "whoever believes in Him" is the one who shall never perish but has eternal life. Believing in someone is simply trusting in that person for something specific. In this context it is shown that what one is relying upon Jesus for by faith is eternal life and the guarantee that one will never perish.

But the checklist evangelists understand "believing in" Jesus to mean something much more complex than that. They believe it is assenting to a plethora of historical and doctrinal facts in addition to belief in Jesus. How can they use this verse for assurance when there is no clear affirmation anywhere in the Scriptures equating "believing in" (pisteuo eis) Jesus with the multitude of creedal assertions that they are convinced are required to be assented to by mandate of God for the express purpose of receiving everlasting life? How can they be sure that they haven't missed something that "believing in" Jesus may encompass? They cannot. There is no verse or passage that clearly identifies "believing in" Jesus with the assent to specific and enumerable doctrinal and historical facts. Furthermore, when Jesus pronounced His promises such as John 3:16 and 11:25-26, he was merely eliciting trust in Him for eternal well-being, not asking them to assent to a wide range of doctrinal facts!

Furthermore, if John 3:16 is sufficient to be singled out for assurance by a checklist evangelist, how is it insufficient as a statement denoting saving faith in his estimation? Such is the inconsistency of their position. John 3:16 does not enumerate for us all of the conditions for eternal life in the opinion of checklist evangelists.

For me, John 3:16 is a sufficient articulation of the single condition mandated by God for eternal life: "believ[ing] in" Jesus. Therefore it is a sufficient scripture to turn to in order to find assurance.

Illustration
If my mom wrote this to me, "I promise that if you send me your mortgage bill for this month that the day I receive it I will send in the payment" where can I get assurance that my mortgage payment was indeed paid for after having sent her the mortgage bill in the mail? Quite simply by doing this: reading the promise of my mom, knowing I fulfilled the condition for her explicit guarantee.

Conclusion
One can ONLY have assurance of the stated consequences of specific conditions if one knows those conditions and then fulfills them. In John 3:16, there is only the one condition given by Jesus (and thus by Consistent Free Grace advocates), faith in Him; there is no run-down of all the conditions that the checklist evangelists impose on the lost. Therefore, checklist evangelists cannot legitimately find assurance in that verse.

Where one finds the conditions for receiving everlasting life and then fulfills them will be the same place that he must look to for assurance. Unfortunately for checklist evangelists, there is no passage that conditions the reception of eternal life on the multitude of historical and doctrinal facts they impose on the lost. The quest for assurance by checklist evangelists and those whom they evangelize can only be described as a scavenger hunt where no one can win.

Dennis Rokser, Duluth Bible Church, and Incongruity

2008-05-04T18:04:00.000-07:00

Recently, someone who attends Duluth Bible Church wrote to me with his/her concerns about some recent preaching from Dennis Rokser. He/she wrote these things:

I'm a believer who attends Duluth Bible Church, pastored by Dennis Rokser... I really feel the need to share and discuss some things. If you are willing to have such a dialogue, I'd be grateful. I've been observing your blog and others for some time and I've come to get a feeling for who has a spirit of grace, though I must say I'm undecided about where I stand on some of the doctrinal controversy.

The thing that prompted me to write to you is the proclamation of two recent messages at DBC by Dennis Rokser. They address specifically the issue of the [current controversy], and Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges are referenced and quoted extensively. Not only is the spirit of the messages caustic, I also have some problems with the content and conclusions.

----------

Antonio,

Thanks so much for responding. I'd really be appreciative if you could give me your feedback on the two recent messages. I think I see some things that are contradictory... I will tell you this. Prior to the whole [current controversial] fiasco, we at DBC were taught that the gospel is 1 Corinthians 15:3,4, but we were never before taught that there are exactly five things a person must believe to be saved (as outlined in the Grace Family Journal articles). In fact, I bet if you took a survey at the door at DBC, very few people would be able to name the five things that are supposedly essential to the salvation message.

I'm not claiming to have a handle on this whole issue... However, I'm as concerned (or more) about how it's being handled. I don't like the name calling, the caustic attitude, and the pride that goes along with being on the attack in this way.

First, I would like to say that this person will remain anonymous at his/her request. I do not wish there to be any consequences to this person for having the guts to investigate and question.

Next, I must note that I believe it to be shameful to use a pulpit to bully people into doctrinal conformity, as it seems to be the case at Duluth from this anonymous member's perspective. This person is not the first member of Duluth Bible Church to email me with concerns. In reality, I have had several members of this church email me about the goings on there.

In my writings, I have dealt with the arguments of that group of fundamentalists and traditionalists that require the lost to become faithful adherents to their creeds before they can simply rely on Jesus to be saved from condemnation. I believed that there really wasn't much more to say on this. Yet, recently, from this anonymous member of Duluth, I received this email describing for me a new line of argumentation coming from the doctrinal legalism and checklist evangelism of the Duluthian Antagonists, that I wish to comment on. Here this member of Duluth describes it:

Antonio,

I have one question. In the two recent messages, Dennis Rokser continually used the term 'incongruity' in his effort to show that the message preached must be the message believed. In other words, because the message was preached and believed, as indicated in several Scriptures, therefore all of the message must be mandatory.

This concept of 'no incongruity' is completely new in our church. Do you know where it comes from?

One of the first things you notice when reading sermons, messages, and discourses in the bible, is that it will only take you a matter of minutes to read them. I wish it were the case with some of the lectures that I have had to endure in school that they would only took a few minutes to listen to! From all experience and logic, we must conclude that these discourses transcribed for us are merely condensed versions of the actual event. The authors pick and choose what they wish to include, and take liberty in condensing the information for space sake, in line with their purposes and intentions in providing the material in the first place. Of course, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what remains for us is accurate and authoritative. But what must first be recognized is that many of these sermons recorded for us in the Bible (whether it be from Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc) are major truncations of the actual speaking engagement. The summarizations (or if you'd rather, truncations or condensations) that require but a few moments to read may have taken the actual speaker dozens of minutes through hours to verbally articulate!

The fundamentalists already have a hefty size checklist of creedal statements (along with their implicit sub-points that must be assented to in their minutia) that they require to be believed before the lost can have eternal life. Now it is being said that the entire messages that the apostles (how can we actually know all that they said in their evangelistic messages?!) and the checklist evangelists give in evangelistic settings must be believed in order to be saved! This could potentially include many more dozens of assertions and affirmations.

When I evangelize, I am trying to persuade the lost that Jesus Christ is authoritative, qualified, and uniquely able to dispense eternal life to all who simply believe in Him for it. I am prepared to discuss a wide range of things, from very simple affirmations, to very complex doctrinal considerations.

I don't expect the lost to believe every thing that I say to them concerning the bible, God, or Jesus Nor would I ever imagine to require that they believed everything I say. Some things concerning Jesus and soteriology are not the milk of the word, but the meat, and therefore may be doubted by the lost, who are not trained to digest such. Yet I will include anything that I think is helpful, tailored to the individual I am addressing.

To require that one believe everything that is said in an evangelistic message spawns a world of problems and confusions. Furthermore, it is simply bad logic to conclude that because men and women are described for us in the bible as having believed a message that was spoken that the assent to the entire message is an actual theological requirement from the perspective of God, mandated from God, for the reception of everlasting life. It is simply non-sequitor.

To this anonymous member of Duluth, I wrote back:

Let us say that you were a juror in a court of law, and in the course of all the testimony, because of the star witness, you were persuaded that the defendant was indeed guilty. Yet, it is not precluded that you may not be convinced of everything that the witness said. You very well could disbelieve or doubt many things that she said. But if something(s) she said convinced you that the defendant was guilty, then you would have to send in your verdict of guilty, regardless of those items that you doubted (in other words, disbelieved). So, in a sense, you believed and were convinced the defendant was guilty in spite of some of the testimony that you couldn't believe.

Let us say that I said many things about Jesus in an evangelism setting. I really want to talk about Jesus, and answer all the lost's questions. Why? I am trying to persuade them that Jesus is authorized, able, and willing to guarantee their eternal destiny by faith in Him alone.

But let us say that in the course of this conversation that I had with a lost person, that some of the things that I said he had doubts about, in other words, did not believe. But what if I came to the part where I said John 3:16 or John 5:24, or John 6:35-40 or John 6:47 or John 11:25-26 and at that point the lost person believed in Jesus for the everlasting life that He alone offers in those verses.

This lost person has believed in Jesus even though he may doubt some of the things that I said.

But when this person places all of his trust in Jesus for the gift that only He offers, he will be born again and have the Spirit of God. In time, with prayer, the word of God, and the Holy Spirit, all of this person's doubts can be cleared up.

But one thing is for sure, a man can place all of his trust into Jesus for everlasting life and not believe everything that he has heard about Him! Some things are the meat of the word that are difficult to understand!

The anonymous member of Duluth wrote this in response, showing me he/she understood what I was saying:

I see what you are saying in your response. Just because something is included in a message doesn't mean it's part of the essential core of the message, right? Otherwise, we'd have to take every doctrine or truth that is part of every message/sermon/passage on salvation and make all of them mandatory. That doesn't make sense. If Paul touched on creation in one of his sermons in Acts, that was for his intended audience and not a universal required element of the message. Am I on the right track here?

The thrust of the two recent messages and the 'no incongruency' theme seemed to me to be saying that because Paul preached something, it's an essential element of the message of salvation. I think that's what is meant by 'There is no incongruency between the message preached and the message believed." But taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean that everything that Paul preached or wrote about in salvation passages must be part of the essential message.

I was very pleased to read this from the member of Duluth. It meant that he/she is investigating, questioning, and thinking these things through. Yet, at the same time, I am concerned by what the members of Duluth are being spoon-fed. From some of the correspondences that I have had with members of Duluth, I get the unmistakable impression that strong consequences are in store for those who question the teaching from that fundamentalist pulpit.

In conclusion, I wish to state that the incongruity lies not in the fact that Free Grace theology does not require the lost to assent to everything that is preached in an evangelistic message. The incongruity lies between the requirements that these fundamentalist traditionalists impose on the lost and the promise of eternal life by the Lord Jesus Christ: "Most assuredly I say to you, whoever believes in Me has everlasting life" (Jn 6:47). This incongruity creates a large divide between the way that these traditionalists evangelize and the way Jesus Christ did.

Revelation 20:6 -- Answering the Challenge of Eschatological Traditionalism

2008-04-11T15:30:00.000-07:00

The doctrinal position that states that all true Christians will reign with Jesus Christ is in grave error. It functionally serves to neuter the greatest of motivations to pursue sanctification and intimacy with Christ: rewards and accountability. Recently, someone who takes the position that all will be basically the same in the kingdom of God for church age saints, proclaiming that all will reign with Christ, wrote, “I've noticed that preachers of [rewards theology] have a real problem explaining this Scripture away: 'Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years' (Rev. 20:6, NASB)."

We will deal with this verse in its context in this article (which is an excerpt from a paper I did in seminary where I wrote a commentary on Revelation chapter 20). I need to learn how to do footnotes in my blogs. So until then, I have to put my footnotes in the text itself.

The Reigning of the Overcoming Saints

Rev 20:4-6
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
(The italics is the NKJV translator’s addition)

Our attentions are now turned from Satan in the bottomless pit to the third heaven. Many commentators find two groups of people here. The author of this commentary only finds one. Verse four contains a very complex sentence that is awkward in English because of its word order in the Greek.

--[For those grammatically challenged, please skip ahead to the next paragraph]--
According to the diagramming of this author, verse 4a has 3 coordinate main clauses: (1) “I saw thrones and the souls” (2) “They sat” and (3) “Judgment was given to them”. The second coordinate object of the first clause, “the souls,” is further modified by two subordinate clauses. The first subordinate clause is a perfect genitival participial phrase, acting adjectivally, “of the ones having been beheaded.” This subordinate clause is further modified by two prepositional phrases: (1) “on account of the testimony of Jesus,” and (2) “on account of the word of God”. The second subordinate clause modifies the substantival participle, which is the first subordinate clause (“of the ones having been beheaded”). This second subordinate is a relative, adjectival clause, using the third person, plural relative pronoun οιτινες, which is translated “those who”. This relative clause has two coordinate predicates: (1) “(those who) neither worshipped the beast nor his image,” and (2) “(those who) did not receive the mark”. The object of this last predicate, τα χαραγμα (= “the mark”) is further modified by two prepositional phrases: (1) “upon the forehead,” and (2) “upon their hand”. The second coordinate main clause, “They sat” is modified by the prepositional phrase, “upon them” (the antecedent of this plural demonstrative pronoun is “thrones”, which is the first of two coordinate objects of that clause.

The word order that would make sense to the 21st century English reader would be this: “And I saw thrones and the souls of the ones having been beheaded on account of the testimony of Jesus and on account of the Word of God, and who neither worshipped the beast nor his image and did not receive the mark upon the forehead and upon their hand. And they sat upon them [thrones] and judgment was given to them” (Author’s translation).

What is said about this one group of people, who died martyr’s deaths, is that they “came to life” and co-reigned with Christ for the thousand years. The NKJV translates εζησεν (3rd person, plural, aorist, active, indicative) as “lived”. In the context, however, it would be better translated as an ingressive aorist, “came to life,” since bodily resurrection is mentioned in verse 5a. (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 559)

What is unmistakable in this passage is the meritorious heirship of these martyrs. It was on account of their faithful testimony to Jesus Christ and their ultimate sacrifice of giving their lives for it that they were given the reward of co-reigning with Christ in the kingdom. “The faithful martyrs of the Great Tribulation are rewarded with a share in Christ’s royal power.” (Zane C. Hodges, Grace in Eclipse (Third Edition), (Irving: Grace Evangelical Society, 2007), 82). This is not to be the privilege of every born-again believer who enters the kingdom, but of those Christians who overcome by perseverance and endurance in their Christian life, and the trials and hardships associated with it (see Rev 2:26-28; 3:21).

The unsaved dead were not resurrected, did not “come to life” (the same ingressive aorist is used here as in verse 5) until the end of the Millennium. They are waiting in Hades for their opportunity to make their case before God at the Great White Throne (Rev 20:13).

“This is the first resurrection” has given some people problems. There not need be any. The simplest explanation can often be the best. The “first resurrection” is a term denoting the final destiny and existence of all believers in the same way the expression the “second death” designates the ultimate eternal fate of all unbelievers. The first resurrection does not imply chronology, per se. The example of the martyred saints comes after the resurrection of the raptured church saints and far after the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the first in terms of quality, priority, and preference.

We find in Rev 20:6 one of seven Beatitudes found in the whole book of Revelation. We must note the other six:

Revelation 1:3 “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand” (KJV). This blessing is pronounced upon those who “hear…and keep” what is found written in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 14:13 “And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them” (KJV). John says blessed are the martyrs who die for Christ, for “their works follow them”. See also the previous verse which declares, “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus” (Rev 14:12).

Revelation 16:15 “Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame” (KJV). Joyful is the person who “watches,” keeping his testimony.

Revelation 19:9 “And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God” (KJV). The marriage supper of the Lamb is for the overcoming Saints who will be co-heirs with Christ in the Kingdom and will co-reign with Him there. It is the celebration of the overcomers. Not all Christians will be attending this feast (see Matt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). Those invited to this intimate feast are those who were granted to wear “fine linen, clean and bright” (Rev 19:6), where we learn in the very next verse the reason that they are honored by such: “the[ir] righteous acts” (19:7).

Revelation 22:7 “Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book” (KJV). A blessing is again pronounced upon the one who guards and keeps the sayings contained in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 22:14 “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” (KJV). The saints who perform the commandments of Christ are they who will be rewarded (blessed) with the right to the tree of life, and entrance through the honored gates into the city (rather than through the common entrances).

What is evident from examining these Beatitudes is that they are all conditioned upon works of some kind or another. They enunciate rewards and honors based upon the merits of the works done by the saints. This observation will be important as we consider the Beatitude found in Rev 20:6.

Revelation 20:6 “Blessed and holy is he who has part [a portion] in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years” (NKJV). As we noted above, the martyrs who died for the testimony of Christ and the Word of God were rewarded a share in Christ’s reign in the kingdom. As we have also observed, the Beatitudes in Revelation depict blessings being pronounced upon fulfillment of conditions of works. In like manner, John now declares the happiness and joy of those who have a “part in the first resurrection.” Not only are they blessed, but these people are sanctified (Greek: a[gioj), set apart for priestly service and royal authority.

It would be wrong to read these words in a vacuum. The text need not be construed as saying that certain people simply “take part” in the first resurrection. On the contrary, John’s vivid statements must be read against the background of our Lord’s parable of the minas [Luke 19:12-16] and against the background of all the other Scriptures already noted [see 2 Tim 2:12; Rev 2:26-27; 3:21]. What we have here is co-heirship with Christ. In this splendid sphere of existence which is called “the first resurrection,” there are those especially blessed because they have a portion, an inheritance, there. And that inheritance or portion is described as an immortality which entails priestly and kingly duties. (ibid. 82)

The word for “part” [better translated: portion] in Rev 20:6 is the Greek term μέρος. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures, called the Septuagint, we have this term used of a portion of inheritance: Proverbs 17:2 “A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and shall have part [or a portion] of the inheritance among the brethren.” In Daniel 5:7, we have Belshazzar stating that anyone who could interpret the writing on the wall that “rulership shall be given unto him: a third part [Greek: μέρος] of the kingdom” (Author’s translation from Septuagint Greek), using the term to indicate a share in authority in the kingdom (see also Dan 5:16, 29 for similar usages of μέρος). This word is also used by the Prodigal Son when he asked for his inheritance ahead of time: “And the younger of them said to his father: ‘Father, give me the share [μέρος] of the wealth that is to become mine.’ So he divided his assets between them” (Luke 15:12). (Ibid., 81. Translation is that of Zane C. Hodges).

In context, then, we have those saints who, through their merit, receive a kingdom, cf. “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him” (2 Tim 2:12). It is in such a way that Jesus Christ Himself has received His kingdom: “Jesus… who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb 12:2). What an application this should have for us in the Christian life: “let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us” (Heb 12:1). To finish the race set before us is to receive the crown, the symbol for kingly authority. Who could forget the words of Paul?

1 Cor 9:24-27
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. 25 And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. 26 Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. 27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.
NKJV

The “second death” has no power over these overcoming saints. The expression used here in Rev 20:6 is an example of the figurative language called litotes, which is “an understatement or negative statement to express an affirmation.” (Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, 156). What is being said here is that far be it from being touched by the second death, these overcoming individuals will be priests and kings in the Millennium.

End excerpt

From the whole context of Revelation we learn that those who will co-reign with Jesus Christ in the kingdom of God are those who have merited such by loving righteousness and hating lawlesseness, enduring until the end. The whole New Testament speaks of the conditionality of the superlative glories and honors available to the saint in the coming ages.

One need only take off the blinders of tradition to see them...

So you're born again... but will you walk with Jesus in white? Part 4

2008-03-31T18:10:00.000-07:00

Part 1 -- Part 2 -- Part 3

The Tragedy of Complacency and Laxity in Doctrine and Practice
I want to start off this post with the ending statement from the last post in this series. It is an important thought that is germane to the study of rewards and accountability.

Jody Dillow has stated: In the Traditionalist “view, all who are Christians will be rewarded, and some more than others. Thus, they have created a version of Christianity where complete commitment is optional and not necessary. All that can be lost is a higher degree of blessedness, but all will be blessed. Could it be that this happy ending has lulled many into thinking they can continue their lukewarmness with no eternal consequences to pay?” (The Reign of the Servant Kings, pg 23).

I am aware of the traditional understandings of the kingdom ages to come that have all true Christians reigning with Jesus Christ and no real accountability for unfaithfulness. In my many conversations with pastor and laymen alike there is the universal belief that heaven will be basically the same for everyone. What a tragedy of incomparable proportions!

For Jesus, their was no glory, authority, and rule without enduring the suffering of the cross. Such is the same for those who desire to be His companions in the Kingdom of God. Jesus was capacitated and prepared for His glory. Are you following His lead?

The writer of the book of Hebrews was addressing Christian Jews who were tempted to return to the old ways of Judaism. But doing so would be tantamount to apostasy: leaving Christ, and failing to persevere until the end. To this group of people the writer issues this stern warning:

Hebrews 3:12-15
Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers [companions / Greek = metachoi] of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end, while it is said:

"Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion."

These were true Christians the writer was talking to. They had been “enlightened” and “tasted the heavenly gift” and were “partakers of the Holy Spirit,” having “tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:4-5). Because of their Christian testimony they had “endured a great struggle with sufferings,” being “made… spectacle[s]” while “joyfully accept[ing] the plundering of [their] goods” (Heb 10:32-34). But now they were in jeopardy of forfeiting their co-heirship with Christ! In this often neglected (even more so, highly misinterpreted) warning, we find that only those who persevere until the end are the companions with Jesus in the coming age.

Addressing "brethren," the writer to the Hebrews warns against hardening one's heart through sin and separating oneself from fellowship with God. To do so is to forfeit intimate companionship with Christ.

What we have learned thus far in this series of articles is that it takes hard work, consecration, discipline, and endurance in order to walk with Jesus in white. Walking with Jesus, as we have already noted, is the superlative experience of intimate fellowship with Him. And being arrayed in white is sharing in His glory, the exclusive glory He merited through His righteousness, faithfulness, and suffering.

Do not harden your hearts!

This consideration of practical theology is for every Christian. There is the unparalleled opportunity, set before each child of God, to share in Christ’s glory and rule over the universe in the coming ages, and the sober possibility of failure, resulting in undesirable punitive consequences. Christians are robbed of God’s greatest motivations unto consecration when they are told the anti-Scriptural pronouncement that all Christians will reign with Christ.

Hear His voice!

As you will note from the first article, the topic at hand is walking with Jesus in white. Our first consideration was the parable of the Wedding Feast (Mt 22:1-14) where we met the poor soul who lacked a "wedding garment" and was excluded from participating in the festivities for the son and his companions. The conclusion made in Part 1 stated that the "wedding garment" is not the imputed righteousness of Christ, but the righteous acts and deeds of each individual participant in the banquet.

Over the course of the next two articles we presented evidence, from the book of Revelation (and others), supporting the idea that the garment is indeed representative of the experiential righteousness of the one wearing it. We also noted the possibility of failing to do that which is required in order to be honored in wearing such a garment.

This article is the last of the series, and in it, we will be adducing more evidence for our conclusions.

The Proclamation of a Heavenly Voice Concerning Overcoming Saints (Rev 12:11)
Satan has busied himself employing his evil devices in order to destroy the saints. At the future time that Satan will be cast out forever from his access to heaven, an angelic voice will announce the victory of those saints who have defeated him and his ploys in this manner:

Rev 12:11
And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.

The triumph of these overcoming saints is here revealed. They achieved their victory over Satan by the blood of the Lamb, the word of their testimony, and by the fact that they did not love their lives unto death.

Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death is what makes every spiritual victory possible. We read that through Christ’s cross work He “disarmed principalities and powers… ma[king] a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it” (Col 2:15). It is only through appropriating the power of Christ that we can overcome Satan. He has won the victory, we are to operate within the sphere of it.

In living in light of Christ’s triumph over Satan, we can “hold” our “confidence steadfast” (Heb 3:14) in the “word of [our] testimony” (Rev 12:11). This word of the saints’ testimony “opposes the deceiving work of Satan in that the preaching of the gospel is the power of God unto salvation” (Walvoord, op. cit., p 193). The gospel tells us how we are to be sanctified, mortify sin, and overcome temptation. It is good news for the believer! (see my article Preaching the Gospel to the Saved for more information on this concept). It is through open confession and identification with the name of Jesus that both temporal and eventual eschatological salvation (in other words, salvation, or triumph and victory, at the Judgment Seat of Christ) is experienced. There is no glory and honor on the Day of Jesus Christ for secret saints.

Lastly, the saints overcame Satan by not loving their lives until the end. It takes dedication to faithfulness in order to win the glories of the age to come. The words of John Walvoord are here instructive. “Though they do not foolishly seek a martyr’s death, they do not regard their own lives (literally ‘souls’; Gr., psyche) as precious. They follow the instruction given to the church of Smyrna (2:10) of being faithful unto death as well as the example of the Saviour who laid down His life for the sheep (John 10:11, 15; c.f. Matt. 16:25)” (Walvoord, op. cit., p 193).

Remember the admonition and encouragement to the church of Smyrna:

Rev 2:10
Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

Satan can level against us every machination at his disposal, but he can never achieve victory against the faithful saint. Here it is manifestly shown that the significant reward of the “crown of life” is contingent upon endurance until the end in faithfulness. Christians cannot achieve overcomer status unless they rise to the challenge to become co-heirs with the King and to enter abundantly into His joy and glory.

Reader, have you received the free gift of God, everlasting life, by simply believing in Jesus for it?
Do you publicly identify yourself with Jesus Christ and seek to bring Him glory through your testimony?
Do you consider your identity in Christ to be more precious then your very life?

If you answer ‘yes’ to these questions, you are on your way to receiving the crown of life, and being worthy honor and glory at the manifestation of the Son of God. You are on your way to walking with Jesus in white!

Jesus Christ’s Beatitude and Warning (Rev 16:15)
We observed in our first article that the king in the parable of the wedding feast observed that the sub-coming (or non-overcoming) saint was not properly attired for the festive celebration he was giving in honor of his son. This man was not prepared for the joys that the king intended for his son and son’s companions. The man without the wedding gown was found in shame, evidenced by the fact that he was “speechless”. Yet just as much as this man was held in contempt for failure in his responsibilities, so those worthy of sharing in the regalement of the son were greatly rewarded by the surpassing delights afforded by the king.

Note the words of Jesus saying the same thing:

"Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame."

In this verse we have one of seven Beatitudes given in the text of the Apocalypse. In a study of each of these we find that the pronouncement of blessing is always contingent upon works. This beatitude is no different. The benediction is conditioned upon 1) watching and 2) keeping one’s garments. This hearkens us back to the message to the Church of Sardis: “You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy…” (Rev 3:4). Blessed, happy, and joyful is the man who watches for Jesus Christ and keeps his garments undefiled!

The first condition of this blessing is to watch for the advent of Jesus. This is a command with attached blessing expounded upon in great detail elsewhere in Scripture (Mt 24:42; 25:13; Mk 13:33-37; Lk 12:37-40; 21:34-36). The reader would do well to look up those references!

We find this from the pen of the Apostle Paul shortly before his death:

2 Tim 4:7-8
I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing.

Do you recognize the weight of this import? Those who love Christ’s appearing (and thus will watch for Him) are to receive the crown of righteousness from the Lord when He comes in His glory! We must be watchful, prepared for His coming, and living in light of that day. Oh what honor we shall receive from Him in front of the Father and the holy angels!

Christian stay true! Christian watch! Christian prepare for that day!

When one is born again, he is “cleansed from his old sins” (2 Pet 1:9), and has a new beginning; he has been made white as snow. At that point one should strive to remain unspotted before the world (Jas 1:27) and thus keep his garment. Yet there is the sad possibility that one may be characterized by barrenness and unfruitfulness (2 Pet 1:8), and unrighteousness (1 Cor 6:8) and thus experience loss and shame at the judgment seat of Christ.

Note how thorough of an investigation will take place before Christ! Note the possibility of two different outcomes, as one is recompensed for what he has done in the body, whether it be good or bad!

Luke 8:16-18
No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a vessel or puts it under a bed, but sets it on a lampstand, that those who enter may see the light. For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light. Therefore take heed how you hear. For whoever has, to him more will be given; and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from him.

There are those who seem unspotted and undefiled but in all reality it is by pretense alone. Everything secret and hidden will be revealed, made known, and come to light! And in the case of the pretender, “even what he seems to have will be taken from him.”

The one who does not “keep his garment” will appear before Christ “naked” and in “shame”! The same writer of the Apocalypse wrote this moving appeal: “And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming” (1 Jn 2:28). We must remain committed to Christ, persisting in steadfastness until the end; watchful for His appearing and keeping our garments undefiled.

Walvoord notes, “The symbolism of preservation of the garments is… the righteousness of the saints… as expressed in their life and testimony (c.f. 19:8)” (op. cit., p 238). There is a distinct possibility that saints may be found spiritually naked (not having a garment consisting of good works, thus being unprepared for the glories of the ages to come). We therefore must be watchful and proactive in righteousness, both in deed and in truth!

Watch and keep your garments so that you may walk with Jesus in white!

The Garment of the Wife of Christ (Rev 19:7-8)
One of the images that Jesus chose to use in describing the loss of the significant and peculiar joy provided by God the Father for His Son and companions is that of a man being discovered shamefully unprepared for an exclusive wedding banquet (the Parable of the Wedding Feast). In this parable a man was found, by the observation of the king, unready for this regal and festive event. His lack of preparation is described in “not hav[ing] on a wedding garment” (Mt 22:11). In part one of this article we noted that the wedding gown signified “the preparation [of oneself] for conditional, superlative eternal glories, consisting of a faithful and consecrated life, steadfast until the end”. This garment represents a life of sanctification and fidelity that manifests itself in righteous deeds. Jesus Christ, as our example, won His peculiar messianic glory to be displayed unto the age of the ages, by such a life. Unto God’s “firstborn”(see Heb 1:6), Jesus the Christ, He says:

Heb 1:8-9
"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."

Because Jesus has loved righteousness and hated lawlessness, God has anointed Him with an exceedingly great joy that His companions (Gk: metachoi) will share in. Jesus prepared Himself and was capacitated for His glory. We too must follow in Jesus’ example!

In Part 1 of this series, we asked these questions concerning our exposition of the Parable of the Wedding Feast (Mt 22:1-14): Is there any corroborating evidence to this interpretation of the wedding garment? Can it be maintained that the wedding garment in this parable corresponds to the preparations that one takes in this life for the contingent glories of the next? Furthermore, let us ask: will unfaithful Christians, who have not loved righteousness and hated lawlessness, share in Christ’s glory, being co-heirs with Him? In Parts 2, 3 and now 4, the final article in this series, we have been attempting to lend support to the interpretation of this parable which was given in Part 1. This last reference we will examine truly lends the greatest support for this interpretation and furthermore gives us another inducement to holiness:

Rev 19:6-8
“Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.” And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.

The term “wife” here is a collective identification for those saints who have made themselves ready by their righteous acts. This "wife" of Christ is portrayed for us as being given the right to wear “fine linen, clean and bright” because of the merit of those who make up this particular group (Christ’s companions). This is clearly shown in the fact that the linen itself “is the righteous acts of the saints”. This body of saints, Christ’s intimate band of co-heirs (symbolized by the word “wife"), made themselves ready through loving righteousness and hating lawlessness; through their purposeful, determinate, and intentional practical acts of righteousness.

What is significant here is that the picture is of a wedding celebration, where overcoming saints, who are characterized by experiential righteousness, are joined to Christ in a very intimate way. This body of saints made themselves ready, in other words, prepared themselves for the privilege that is here described! Because of this assembly's preparation, they wore fine linen, which is told to us is their righteous acts!

The parallels of this passage to the Parable of the Wedding Feast are striking! Those participants in the wedding feast needed to come in proper attire. The man observed without a wedding garment was excluded from the joy within. He did not come prepared! He lacked making himself ready! Those so described as the “wife” in this scene (Rev 19:7-9) called “the marriage of the Lamb” made themselves ready, in other words, prepared themselves for the superlative experience of this great intimacy with Christ symbolized by marriage.

Both discuss a wedding feast, a garment, being prepared (or lack thereof) for the festive occasion, and opportunity for intimate, and grand fellowship with Christ. They are strikingly parallel. The passage found here in Rev 19:7-8 adduces very strong support for the interpretation that the wedding garment in Matt 22:1-14 is indeed the preparation of the life for the glories to come consisting in experiential righteousness.

Conclusion of the matter
Most people in Christendom today regard the wedding garment of the man in the parable of the Wedding Feast (Mt 22:1-14) as the righteousness of Christ. But the greatest weight of evidence supports the truth that what he really lacked was practical righteousness, “righteous deeds”.

Reader, it is my desire that you take the time to seriously consider this biblical and logical position as expounded in many places all over the New Testament. This life is a testing ground which will determine our roles in the coming ages. It is a time for preparation and capacitating for the glories, honors, and authority of the Kingdom of God. The view expressed in these articles best accounts for all the biblical data. Test it. As you read the Bible, try to understand the many conditional structures that you once considered as discussing the Perseverance of the Saints as conditions for the abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pt 1:11). You may very well find "exegetical gold"!

“Take heed how you hear!” Jesus says, because, “whoever has, to him more will be given; and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from him"! (Lk 8:18).

Will you walk with Jesus in white? Such will not be the outcome for every child of God.

Could John MacArthur Sign the FGA Covenant in 'Good Faith'?

2008-03-17T18:59:00.000-07:00

Could John MacArthur sign the Covenant of the Free Grace Alliance in good conscience? I believe that he can. (Now would he? That is a different story!)

I do not believe that John MacArthur is an insincere man. I am left with the impression that this man believes everything he writes. But that would mean that he believes all of his contradictions. To him, the dissonance that it must create is probably compartmentalized in some fashion that allows him to talk out of two sides of his mouth.

With each one of the affirmations in the FGA’s covenant, I have included quotes from John MacArthur that either explicitly or implicitly shows that he could assent to the enumerated affirmation.

Does he say things that are contradictory to these statements? Of course he does. But the quotes that I provide from him, I am convinced that he believes. He holds opposing and contradictory doctrines which in someway in his mind are compatible and non-contradictory.

Again. Could John MacArthur sign on to the FGA’s Covenant? I believe that in all good conscience he could.

Page numbers, unless noted, are from “The Gospel According to Jesus, Revised and Expanded”

BTW, as you read these covenants, could YOU with all good conscience sign on to them? There can be made a case that Lou Martuneac CANNOT in all good conscience sign on to all of them. In all of the writings of Lou, it is apparent that he could not sign on to #7, for Lou demands repentance IN ADDITION to faith and other steps (totaling at least 18 things). Lou, why do you feign to be able to sign the FGA covenant? You cannot do so with a good conscience!

Why do I provide this study? For one reason, I believe that the FGA's statements are too ambiguous and not clear enough; they are too broad and could allow many evangelicals to sign on who are not Free Grace. Neither is anything in its affirmations distinctly Free Grace. The wording falls much too short of anything specifically and distinguishably Free Grace.

I believe that the Covenant needs to be re-written as to preclude people who are not really Free Grace from being able to join. I have spoken to Bob Wilkin personally about the FGA. He told me that the sole reason he wouldn't sign on is that the covenant is much to broad of a statement that could allow people who are not Free Grace to join. It isn't an issue that he can't sign it. It is an issue that he believes it is seriously inadequate.

I am a part of the FGA and have signed the covenant in good faith and conscience. Yet I believe, as Bob does, that it is insufficient to delineate and distinguish true Free Grace advocates from those who may only have a problem with some aspects of Lordship Salvation.

BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS SOME PROBLEM OF ONE SORT OR ANOTHER WITH LORDSHIP SALVATION DOES NOT MAKE THAT PERSON A FREE GRACE ADVOCATE!

On with the exercise:

1. The Grace of God in justification is an unconditional free gift.

“Salvation is a gift…” (pg 38)

“In 1:17-18 James affirmed that salvation is a gift bestowed according to the sovereign will of God.” (Q&A with John MacArthur found here: http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-james2.htm)

“salvation is a blessed gift from God” (pg 95)

“Eternal life is not a wage, but a gift. You cannot earn eternal life because it is a free gift. It can't be earned by good works, church attendance, philanthropy, or religious rituals.” (Article entitled, “Freedom from Sin” found here: http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg45-49.htm)

2. The sole means of receiving the free gift of eternal life is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose substitutionary death on the cross fully satisfied the requirement for our justification.

“Salvation is solely by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8).” (pg 37)

“Christ atoned for our sins; God is therefore propitiated… The enmity has been removed. The full price was paid, so God can receive believing sinners with no taint on his own righteousness.” (pg 200)

3. Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life

“You are made righteous only when you've put your faith in Jesus Christ, accepting His death on your behalf…” (Article entitled, “The Convicting Ministry of the Holy Spirit”, found here: http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1559.htm)

“God graciously saved people by reckoning his righteousness to them because of their faith. No one has ever been saved through the merit system – salvation has been available only by grace through faith ever since our first parents fell.” (pg 196)

"Human effort cannot bring salvation. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. When we relinquish all hope except faith in Christ and His finished work on our behalf, we are acting by the faith that God in His grace supplies.” (pg 69, Faith Works)

“Justification is a past reality. It was accomplished the moment we trusted in Christ. That particular act of faith need never be repeated because we are secure in our Father's hands, and no one can snatch us from there (John 10:28-29). We are forever saved from condemnation (Romans 8:1).” (Article entitled, “The Believer’s Armor” found here: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Positions/2168)

“[our faith and assurance is in] the finished work of Christ on our behalf, including the promises of Scripture that have their yea and amen in Him (2 Cor. 1:20)" (p. 164, Faith Works).

4. Justification is the act of God to declare us righteous when we believe in Jesus Christ alone.

“Justification may be defined as an act of God whereby he imputes to a believing sinner the full and perfect righteousness of Christ, forgiving the sinner of all unrighteousness, declaring him or her perfectly righteous in God’s sight, thus delivering the believer from all condemnation.” (pg 197)

“[Justification] is owing to no good thing in us… Justification is possible exclusively through the imputed righteousness of Christ: ‘To the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.’” (pg 199)

“…a one time legal transaction – justification -- … moves us into a new relationship with God… brings peace with God in place of enmity… makes us heirs according to the hope of eternal life… [and] is the very heart of the gospel according to Jesus.” (pg 202)

5. Assurance of justification is the birthright of every believer from the moment of faith in Jesus Christ, and is founded upon the testimony of God in His written Word.

“I do believe that there is an immediate aspect to assurance, grounded in the promises of the gospel…. We find many promises in Scripture that assure believers of their eternal destiny (eg., John 3:16; 1 John 5:1). Those promises offer objective assurance… Even a brand-new believer can look to such promises and find a measure of assurance.” (pg 273)

6. Spiritual growth, which is distinct from justification, is God’s expectation for every believer; this growth, however, is not necessarily manifested uniformly in every believer.

“There are two serious errors to avoid in the matter of justification. First, do not confuse justification with sanctification… Sanctification is a practical reality, not simply a legal declaration… By including sanctification as an aspect of justification, Catholic theology renders instantaneous justification impossible.” (pg 198)

Justification is distinct from sanctification because in justification God does not make the sinner righteous; He declares that person righteous (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16). Notice how justification and sanctification are distinct from one another:
· Justification imputes Christ's righteousness to the sinner's account (Romans 4:11b); sanctification imparts righteousness to the sinner personally and practically (Romans 6:1-7; 8:11-14). •
· Justification takes place outside sinners and changes their standing (Romans 5:1-2, sanctification is internal and changes the believer's state (Romans 6:19). •
· Justification is an event, sanctification a process.
Those two must be distinguished…”

----(Article entitled, "Justification by Faith” found at http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Grace_to_You/Article.asp?article_id=955)

“Obviously even in Scripture we see that believers sometimes sinned grievously and over long periods of time… believers do not lose their salvation when they sin but [they] forfeit… the joy of their salvation (Ps. 51:12).” (pg 274)

“Christians can be carnal… they can behave in carnal ways.” (pg 280)

“Certainly true believers can ‘backslide’…” (pg 281)

“…true believers are said to backslide (Jer. 14:7) All believers go through times when they do not grow or are set back in their growth by sin – they seem to be sliding backwards like a calf on a muddy slope (cf. Hos. 4:16 KJV).” (pg 281)

7. The Gospel of Grace should always be presented with such clarity and simplicity that no impression is left that justification requires any step, response, or action in addition to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

“Now, listen. Salvation then is by grace completely apart from works.” (Article entitled, “The Salvation of Babies who Die” found here: http://www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0142.htm)

“What is the gospel? That question fuels the passion that has driven me all the years of my ministry. It is not merely an academic quest. I want to know what God’s Word teaches so that I can proclaim it with accuracy and clarity.” (pg xx)

“Let me say as clearly as possible right now that salvation is by God’s sovereign grace and grace alone. Nothing a lost, degenerate, spiritually dead sinner can do will in any way contribute to salvation… I have never taught that some presalvation works of righteousness are necessary to or part of salvation.” (pg xvi)

“Most critical is this truth: Salvation has always been by grace through faith, not by works of the law (Gal. 2:16). Clearly, even Old Testament saints… were saved by grace through faith.” (pg 32, emphasis his)

“Salvation is solely by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). That truth is the biblical watershed for all we teach.” (pg 37)

“Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). That is the consistent and unambiguous teaching of Scripture.” (pg 94)

“Eternal life is not a wage, but a gift. You cannot earn eternal life because it is a free gift. It can't be earned by good works, church attendance, philanthropy, or religious rituals… There is nothing else to say to the world other than to offer them the gift of salvation in Jesus Christ.” (Article entitled, “Freedom from Sin” found here: http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg45-49.htm)

Open Letter to the Free Grace Alliance

2008-03-12T14:16:00.001-07:00

This is an open letter from Antonio da Rosa, member of the Free Grace Alliance.

I want to bring to your attention that Lou Martuneac, who is not a member of the FGA that I am aware of, has opened a comment thread on his blog about the new FGA statement concerning the gospel, where he (and other non FGA members) has been critical of it. Fred Lybrand, the founding director of the FGA, wrote in an irenic spirit concerning the new FGA statement under this same blog article thread (although I am under the impression that he has some misunderstandings about what some in the FGA has dubbed "the Promise-Only gospel"). Several people who are not in the FGA, and who do not even consider themselves Free Grace (Lou Martuneac does not consider himself Free Grace, and he is on record in various places saying so) are being critical of the statement. Yes it is true that Lou Martuneac is arguing as if he has a vested interest in the FGA, which he does not, but this does not prompt my writing.

The reason for this open letter to you all is the comments made from Ron Shea that Lou Martuneac posted on his blog, which seems to be an email to Lou Martuneac from Shea. In this disclosure of Lou Martuneac from Ron Shea, there is this material:

5) In addition to their theology, there are three Ph.D.’s and/or former professors who claim the mantle of this movement. Professor Zane Hodges is, by every appearance, the author of the Crossless gospel. Then Bob Wilkin (GES) and John Niemela.

Frankly, I do regard this movement as evil, not only in its theology, but in the leaders, at least two thirds of whom I find to be not simply sinners (as we all are), but who have systematically, cunningly, and grievously sinned to promote their heresy.

(emphasis was mine)

Ron Shea is a member of the FGA and is actively seeking to bring members of the Free Grace community into disrepute by accusing them of willful, systematic, deceptive, and grievous sins.

I am looking for a remark from the FGA executive committee distancing themselves from the hateful, irresponsible, and reprehensible comments of Ron Shea. It is one thing to disagree with the position of another. It is quite another thing to condemn those of the other viewpoint of evil and sin.

Will the FGA condemn the statements made by one of its members, Ron Shea, thus distancing themselves from them?

The comment thread of this post is found here, which contains comments by Fred Lybrand and Ron Shea.

Comment Thread of Lou Martuneac

I have found it shocking already that some in the FGA have condemned the position on the gospel that I hold to as the 'post-modern Promise-only false gospel'. This is the type of rhetoric that we should avoid.

Are we not all preaching the cross in evangelism?
Sure we are.

Are we not all preaching the bodily resurrection of Jesus in evangelism?
Of course we are.

Are we not all preaching eternal life by grace through faith in Jesus Christ apart from works?
Most assuredly we are.

We may be differing a bit on what the exact content of saving faith is, but one thing is for sure that we all agree on:

Saving faith is simple and sole reliance upon Jesus Christ of Nazareth for eternal life, for spiritual salvation. It is believing in Jesus for eternal life. It is trust in Jesus Christ alone. It is faith alone in Christ alone.

I am pleased with the new statement from the FGA. The good news about Jesus Christ which contains the essential preaching of the substitutionary nature of Christ's death on the cross for sin and his bodily resurrection needs to be heralded far and wide. It is essential that we preach Christ crucified and risen again.

Thank you all for your time.

I look forward to a statement from the FGA one way or another in this concern.

Your comments and reactions to this will be greatly appreciated and kept confidential at your request.

Sincerely,

Antonio da Rosa
http://free-grace.blogspot.com

GES Conference Overview

2008-03-08T17:13:00.000-08:00

The GES National Grace Conference was a great time of fellowship, teaching, meeting new friends, and book-buying.

The conference was held at the Southern Baptist Southwestern Seminary. What beautiful facilities met us at this venue. On the first two days the attendance was between 200-220. The last day it dropped off significantly due to crazy weather (freezing rain, sleet, and snow).

The first evening I got in at 9:30 pm to Dallas Love Field airport. Rene Lopez and his friend Lamont picked me up. We went by Denny's on the way to his house so I could pick up some food (I had a flight from San Diego at 2:40 that had an hour and a half layover in Albuquerque, and there was no food on either flight).

Right away Rene and I started talking theology and discussing various issues dealing with Free Grace Theology. Rene is very sharp. We had talked on the phone before my trip a few times, one being over 3 hours, discussing different doctrines. I had read Rene's commentary on Romans, Romans Unlocked: Power to Deliver for a second time in order that I might discuss items I had more questions on, or disagreed with him on. I highly recommend Rene's commentary, as it truly unlocks that book's theme.

The next morning we had to wake up very early, as the Southwest campus is about an hour away from Rene's home, and Rene had to set up a table for his new book on the Jesus Family Tomb (foreward by Darrel Bock). He had a couple of manuscripts there and a a sheet for pre-buying as the book was currently being published.

There were good displays there, but my favorites were the ICR table and the Schoettle Publishing table. ICR (Institute for Creation Research) used to be headquartererd in El Cajon (just 5 minutes from my house), where they were for over 30 years. I have had the pleasure of having much interaction with ICR material in the past, both in Bible College and in pleasure reading. I have also been able to take a few classes from ICR authors for Flood geology, Noah's Ark feasibility, and the book of Genesis. One of my friends became involved and employed with ICR and moved to Dallas, where they are now headquartered. It was good to see him manning the booth of ICR. Lewis Schoettle had many tables of new books and 3 huge moveable shelving units (with books on both sides) of used books. What a great time perusing all those books! I just love books. I bought books authored by G.H. Lang, A. Edwin Wilson, Robert Govett, and one by Nancy Missler (Chuck Missler's wife). I also got a free-bie from Lew Schoettle authored by Arlen Chitwood on the book of Jude.

The GES table was full of good deals that they reserved only for the conference. I was able to pick up 5 James Commentaries by Zane Hodges, 3 Grace in Eclipse by Zane Hodges, and another Absolutely Free! by Zane Hodges, so that I may give them out to friends. I also picked up a book called Setting the Stage for Eternity, a book on rewards and the judgment seat of Christ, by Dr. Harlan Betz. This book has a foreward by Howard Hendricks, and endorsements by Dr. Stanley Toussaint, Dr. Norman Geisler, Dr. Thomas Constable, Dr. Earl Radmacher, and Zane Hodges. The material so far in the book is highly encouraging and motivating for the Chistian life. As a side, the books written on rewards by reputable authors are very motivating to live for Christ. I would recommend buying an assortment. Please ask me to make some referrals for you if you don't know where to start.

The first day had 4 plenary sessions and 3 chances for workshops:

Plenary #1 was Bob Wilkin, "Searching the Scriptures to Find the Truth: Remember the Bereans (Acts 17:11)!" Talking about being diligent to study the Scriptures, finding our doctrines there and not holding them by mere tradition. A favorite line that Bob used in this session went something like this, "Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, for the most part, believe the same things. But the difference is that Evangelicals know why they believe what they do while Fundamentalists hold fast to their tradition."

Plenary #2 was Zane Hodges, "In the Upper Room with Jesus the Christ (John 13-17)" which described how the Last Discourse (AKA the Upper Room Discourse) fits within John's purpose for his gospel.

Plenary #3 was Nathan Holsteen, "A Topography of Grace" that distinguished two Reformer's views on "faith": Robert Rollock and John Calvin.

Plenary #4 was Ken Yates, "The Complexity of the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ" which showed all the confusion that thinkers and clergy had developing the doctrine of Christ's deity over the first 4 centuries A.D.

The workshops I attended on day 1 were, "Faith in the NT" by Fred Chay, "Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth" by Frank Sherwin, and "Perseverance in Perspective" by Jody Dillow.

For lunch I went to the Southwestern cafeteria and shared the meal with a friend, Charlie Bing, and a few of his friends that ministered in India with him. What great conversations about India, which I love.

In the evening I was able to go out to dinner with a friend of mine who went to India with me last October, Mr. Jon Case. We went to a great little Texan eatery where I had fried green tomatoes, lobster bisque, and porkchops with wood roasted vegetables. I ended with an oreo crusted key-lime pie.

Day two likewise had 4 plenary and 3 workshop times:

Plenary #5 was Jody Dillow, "Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works?" which examined what he called "neo-nomianism" (aka Federal Vision, Auburn Ave Theology, and Norman Shepherdism), that unambiguosly states that works are necessary for final salvation.

Plenary #6 was Zane Hodges, "Miraculous Signs and Literary Structure in the Fourth Gospel", that beautifully interwove John chapters 13-19 into the consideration of the purpose statement (Jn 20:30-31) based on literary evidence.

Plenary #7 was William Dembsky, "Life on Earth is the Result of Intelligent Design", that used philosophy and empirical science to argue that the universe came to be by intelligent design.

Plenary #8 was Bob Wilkin, "Is the Evangelistic Message Jesus Preached a Sufficient Message for Today?" which argued that Jesus' words from the Gospel of John are the saving message for today, in other words, are the bullseye and call to everlasting life that we are to give the unsaved today.

I attended on day two these workshops, "Salvation of the Psyche" by Patillo, "Falls from Grace in Church History" by Sterling, and "Full Assurance?" by none other than
Bud Brown (Dr. L.E. Brown), remember him?

I ate lunch at What-a-Burger with Jon Case and yet another one of the friends I went to India with, Trent. What-a-burger is not even a shadow of our lovely In-and-Out Burger here in California. What-a-burger was lame.

This evening I was able to have face time with Zane Hodges, where we ate dinner at Steak and Ale. What a great time! We discussed his bio, Dallas Seminary, theology, soteriology, books, and my current studies. What a humble, gracious, and patient man of God! I had salad bar, lobster bisque, and a medium rare ribeye and baked potato with the works.

The last day, again, had 4 plenary and 3 workshops:

Plenary #9 was John Niemela, "Jesus Gives Believers Everlasting Life: Will Unbelievers Live Forever?" that discussed the idea that life is only for believers, and distinguished between existence and life as taught by the Apostle John.

Plenary #10 was Bob Wilkin, "The Gospel is Good News about the Lord Jesus" which argued that the words for "gospel", "preach the gospel" and "evangelist" never have an import of a technical expression denoting solely what one must believe to have everlasting life, never!

Plenary #11 was Bob Bryant, "The Search for the Saving Message Outside of the Gospel of John" that argued that there is not a single expression outside of the gospel of John that gives the saving message, not even one!

Plenary #12 was Dan Hauge, "Practical Implications of the High Priestly Ministry of Christ" which taught that studying who Christ is and what He has done has tremendous practical use.

The workshops I attended were, "Introducing FG theology to Resistant Friends" by Swihart, "The Person of Christ in the Prologue of Hebrews" by Yates, and "Holy, Blameless, Beyond Reproach" by Leach.

Today I had lunch at Chick-Filet, my first time. It was nothing really to write home about. A good chicken sandwich. The rain was freezing!!!!!

The weather was so harsh on this last day that all of the flights going out of Dallas/Fort Worth were cancelled. I had plans to go out with Jeremy Myers, his wife and family to go out to dinner, but decided against it because of the extra travel and weather conditions. The Dallas/Fort Worth area is huge. I ended up taking Rene Lopez and his wife out for dinner at a Cuban restaurant a few blocks from his house (Rene and his wife are Cuban). I had shrimp, crab, ceviche, and lightly fried plantain chips with a garlic oil spread on the top (so good!) for appetizers and a Cuban soda. Next I had a fried pork dinner with rice, black beans, yucca root, and plantains. For desert I had flan.

My plane got out of there on time yesterday (Friday), and here I am.

If ya'll have any questions about anything, please feel free to leave a comment. I will try to get to some of the sessions in the days following to give some assessments of the plenary sessions.

Antonio

Grace Evangelical Society's National Conference

2008-03-02T16:24:00.001-08:00

Dear Patrons of Free Grace Theology Blog,

I am still here. As you know I have been posting some on my group blog, Unashamed of Grace and have neglected the postings here. I have several series that I need to finish. In the meantime, I am off to the Dallas/Fort Worth area tomorrow to attend the Grace Evangelical Society's annual national conference. I will be staying with fellow Free Gracer Rene Lopez, who has graciously allowed me to crash at his house.

For a schedule of the speakers and topics at this year's conference, you may link here: Conference Schedule. Seems like there will be some really great topics and speakers.

While I am there, I will do my best to try to live blog some of it. I am not sure what kind of access I will have to the internet, but we will see. I am excited about this conference. What a great time to connect with friends and meet new ones. The Lord willing, I will be having dinner with Prof. Zane Hodges on Wednesday night, for an intimate time of fellowship and lively discussion. I also have an appointment for dinner with Jeremy Myers and his wife and children. Jeremy and his wife Wendy have become endeared to me over the last few years. It will be great to finally meet them in person.

The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is of greatest importance to me. I am privileged to be able to study and proclaim it in its entirety. At the heart of this gospel message is 1) the guarantee of eternal life to all who simply believe in Jesus and 2) justification by faith alone. These tenets are being compromised by many groups within Christendom. This blog and I stand for the freeness of the offer of eternal life.

Thank you all for your patronage and history. I look forward to many more years of theological dialogue.

Your Free Grace theology host,

Antonio G. da Rosa

(and the G does not stand for "Gerald", Rose)

Paraphrase of James 2:14-26 by Zane C. Hodges

2008-01-10T14:54:00.000-08:00

Dead Faith: What Is It? A Study on James 2:14-16 (Redencion Viva, 1987, pgs 15, 16, 18, & 20) by Zane Clark Hodges

What good does it do, my Christian brothers, if someone among you says he has faith and yet does not act on that faith? Faith certainly cannot preserve his life, now can it? It would be the same thing as if one of you spoke to some Christian brother or sister who was destitute of the necessities of life and you said, "Go home peacefully and get warmed and filled." But if you did not give them the very things they needed for bodily life, what good would it do? Would their lives be saved by your confident words? In the same way when faith stands all by itself, because you fail to act on it, your inactive faith is as dead as your useless words to your destitute Christian brother. It has no life-preserving power at all!

But someone is going to say, [objector:] "All right then! Let's say that you have correct beliefs and I have correct actions. Go right ahead! Take some belief of yours and make it visible by means of your actions. And if you can do that (but, of course you can't!), then I will take my actions and will make my belief visible through them (utterly impossible!). Oh, I know! You'll claim that your faith in the unity of God is demonstrated by your good conduct. I disallow that claim. The demons also believe the same thing you believe and they don't do good! They only tremble!"

[Reply of James to hypothetical objector] "Oh senseless man! Do you really want to know that faith is genuinely dead without works? Take our father Abraham as an example. Isn't it obvious that he was vindicated by his works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? Can't you see for yourself that his faith was cooperating with his works and his faith was actually matured by those works?"

[Reply continues] "And was not all this an appropriate fullfillment of the divine delcaration by which he was originally vindicated in God's sight; for the Scripture says that 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness'? But now, in offering up his own son, this original divine acceptance of Abraham was substantiated and verified in the eyes of men who appropriately called him 'the friend of God.'"

In conclusion, then, as you all can see, a man can be vindicated by works as well as being vindicated by faith. To illustrate: Was not Rahab the prostitute obviously vindicated by her works when she actively aided the spies to escape? Isn't that how she herself survived when everybody else in her city died? The point is plain: When Christian faith is disconnected from our works, it has no more vitality and life-preserving power than does a corpse which has been disconnected from its dynamic, life-giving spirit.

(PS: I am working on the final part of the last series)

So you're born again... But will you walk with Jesus in white? Part 3

2007-12-19T13:11:00.000-08:00

The white robes of the Fifth Seal martyrs (Rev 6:9-11)
We have been learning about what is necessary to win the glories of the ages to come. How important it is to remain stedfast in our confession and testimony! Our next passage for consideration views newly martyred saints out of the Great Tribulation.

When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying,"How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

These martyrs “had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.” They remained stedfast in their confession, even unto death! These, examples for each one of us, died for their faith and were therefore accordingly given white robes. Holding firm to our confession in the face of torture and deadly persecution is the most difficult work of all, yet is rewarded with the highest honors.

Will the examination of your works at the Judgment Seat of Christ merit such honor? There is still time to live a life worthy of reward! The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews has this advice for each of us in light of the many examples of faithful endurance presented to us in the scriptures (Christ being the ultimate exemplar):

Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Heb 12:1-2)

A multitude of individuals coming out of the Great Tribulation arrayed in white robes (Rev 7:9-17)
Many Gentiles will be saved during the tribulation and the majority of these will die as martyrs. They will be the objects of special persecution by the world ruler. Much like the Jews of World War II, they will be hounded to death. Their stedfast resolve to not worship the beast will be a death sentence: “[The false prophet] was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed” (Rev 13:15). The result will be multiplied thousands of martyrs (see John Walvoord, op. cit., p 146).

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hand… Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?" And I said to him, "Sir, you know." So he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. "

At first blush, and upon a careless reading, one may get the impression that the robe represents nothing other than the positional, eternal forgiveness of Christ that was made possible by His sacrificial death. Yet there are several, very strong reasons to dismiss this understanding as premature.

First, let it be noted that every single instance of the white robe thus far in the Revelation text is found couched in the language of works and merit. Remember, those at the church at Sardis had to be found worthy in order to walk with Jesus in white by shunning defilement and victorious endurance until the end. Also, those at the church of Laodicea were counseled to “buy” white garments. And the martyrs of the Fifth Seal, upon their deaths for the word of God and their stedfast testimony, were given white robes. We learn that this multitude, in the text being considered, consisting of many nations, were “clothed with white robes.” Why are we going to expect that they received theirs any different than has been determined for the rest?

Second, this group from the nations are martyrs themselves as the text clearly states. Make note that “these are the ones who come out of the great tribulation.” Their deaths were testimonies unto Christ, whereof they faithfully endured until the end. They overcame unto death, thus fulfilling the requirements to walk with Jesus in white.

Third, the scene at hand pictures these saints, whose testimony unto Christ was sealed with their blood, with palm branches in their hands. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states that palm branches are “connected with the idea of triumph and victory” (ISBE, Vol IV, pg 2236). It goes on to state how that Simon Maccabaeus entered the Akra at Jerusalem after its capture, “with thanksgiving, and branches of palm trees, and with harps, and cymbals, and with viols, and hymns, and songs: because there was destroyed a great enemy out of Israel” (1 Macc 13:51). These martyrs had victoriously endured their persecutions and trials. This now was a time of profound triumph, afforded by their faithful confession of Christ in the midst of great tribulation, where they have been honored by sharing in Christ’s glory!

Lastly, and most importantly, the martyrs themselves both “washed their robes” and “made them white.” This is something that they, themselves did! The Reformed traditions always try to protect God’s glory and sovereignty by noting that it is God alone who saves, thus it is only God who washes one unto forgiveness, and this apart from anything that the lost does (even exercising faith!). But in this context it is incontrovertibly shown that it is the martyrs themselves who do the washing and making! The theology of the Traditionalists should prevent them from perpetrating their tragic mistakes with regard to the ‘garment’ texts. But it doesn’t.

Obviously this type of literary construction (where the martyrs are working in cooperation and fellowship with Jesus) is to be distinguished and contrasted with verses such as this one found elsewhere in Revelation: “[Jesus] loves us and washed us from our sins in His own blood” (Rev 1:5). The distinctions here are easily noticed by the careful reader of Revelation. On the one hand Jesus “washed us from our sins in His own blood.” This was His action alone that He alone receives the glory for. Yet on the other hand the martyrs shed their blood by remaining stedfast in their confession and were found arrayed in white garments which they, themselves had “washed” and “made” white in the blood of the Lamb. And for such deeds as these they are worthy of glory!

Since we have ruled out the idea that these martyrs are dressed in white solely because of the salvation they received as an absolutely free gift, we must grapple with what the text does mean. As in the other instances, we must consider the garments as the expression and culmination of the martyrs’ preparation for glory while here on earth. With that firmly in mind we see that their Christian practice that capacitated them for the superlative glories in the kingdom evidenced itself in participation in the sufferings of Christ (which the blood of the Lamb represents) that they shared in. By faithfully enduring persecution for their confession and dying for Christ they actively kept themselves undefiled, overcoming in victorious perseverance. They thus prepared to share in the glory of Christ by first sharing in His sufferings.

Such an idea as this is not foreign to the text of scripture. For example Paul states:

The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs -- heirs of God; and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. (Rom 8:16-17)

By mere virtue of the fact that one is a child of God (simply by believing in the name of Jesus, cf. Jn 1:12) he is an heir of God. But being a joint heir, or co-heir with Christ in the coming kingdom is conditioned on suffering with Him. Co-heirship is contingent on co-suffering with Christ so that we may be co-glorified! For Jesus, there was no crown without the cross (see Lk 24:26; Heb 12:2). This is the same for those who are to be His companions, those who partake of His glory. Unless one suffers with Christ, he will not be glorified with Him. Peter also states:

Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ's sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy. (1 Pt 4:12-13)

To endure in one’s faithful confession of Jesus Christ in the midst of persecutions and trials is to share in Christ’s sufferings, where the reward for doing so is being “glad with exceeding joy.” Remember in the parable of the talents that the two servants who maximized the potential which was given to them by increasing the money allotted to them 100% were blessed by entering “into the joy of [their] lord” (Matt 25:21, 23). These servants were allowed to participate in the peculiar joy belonging to their lord. This is the same as the parable of the Wedding Feast. The joy is that particular joy of Christ, and unless one is prepared, he will not be privileged to share in it. Lastly we are met again with the words of Paul:

… I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ… that I may know Him… and the fellowship [or sharing] of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the [out]-resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me… I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. (Phil 3:7-14)

Paul wished to participate in the sufferings of Christ, conforming his life to Christ’s obedience wherein He died on the cross, so that he would, by any means that he could manage within the limitations of his body, attain to the out-resurrection (Gk: eksanastasis) from the dead. Paul, along with anyone else who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, already knew that he would be resurrected unto life (see Jn 11:25-26). Everyone who simply believes in the Lord Jesus Christ will be resurrected (Gk: anastasis). But only those who persevere suffering with Christ will attain to the out-resurrection (Gk: eksanastasis) from the dead. Re-read God’s gallery of heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11. Notice that the characters in this passage faithfully work their deeds of righteousness with the superlative rewards of glory in the forefronts of their mind. To illustrate what Paul desired (the out-resurrection from among the dead), consider Hebrews 11:35b: “Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.” Indeed, Paul suffered all things, sharing in Christ’s sufferings and death, so that he might obtain a better resurrection, the “out-resurrection.”

By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward.

Are you willing to suffer affliction, esteeming the reproach of Christ, for the purpose of being found worthy of glory in the coming kingdom? Brothers, “Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility” (Col 2:18). The minimalization of the great incentive of rewards, wherein its motivations are essentially neutered by all strains of Lordship Salvation advocates, will lull those thereby decieved into slothful complacency. It is nothing but false humility that disobeys Christ's command to store up treasures in heaven.

Joseph Dillow sums it up best: In the Calvinistic Lordship “view, all who are Christians will be rewarded, and some more than others. Thus, they have created a version of Christianity where complete commitment is optional and not necessary. All that can be lost is a higher degree of blessedness, but all will be blessed. Could it be that this happy ending has lulled many into thinking they can continue their lukewarmness with no eternal consequences to pay?” (The Reign of the Servant Kings, pg 23).

(to be continued...)

So you're born again... But will you walk with Jesus in white? Part 2

2007-12-10T17:16:00.000-08:00

In our first installment we saw how easily the consistent Free Grace position fits the parabolic stucture of the Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1-14). We also saw the superiority of such an interpretation, as it alone fits the data the best. Part two of this series seeks to corroborate the idea there are significant rewards to be won by preparation in this life, and great loss to be suffered in failure to do such. Will you walk with Jesus in white?

The Church of Sardis and the prospect of the white garment (Rev 3:4-5)
In the parable of the Wedding Feast, we have given the interpretation of the wedding garment as thus: “the preparation for conditional, superlative eternal glories consisting of a faithful and consecrated life, stedfast until the end.” Such an idea is found on the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ in His address to the church in Sardis.

You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

We do not have here a picture of the free gift of eternal life and righteousness bestowed upon the Christian. Those in the church of Sardis have the potential to “walk with” Jesus (expressing intimate fellowship) clothed in “white garments” if they fulfill the conditions of “not defil[ing] their garments,” being victorious in their lives through works (“He who overcomes”: Gk = ‘nike,’ the victorious one), and being “worthy.” Such is not the language of imputed righteousness! It takes the hard works of keeping oneself unspotted, overcoming sin and evil, and exercising oneself unto rewardable integrity until the end in order to merit this superlative reward of being clothed in white and walking with Jesus.

Notice that the one who fulfills the conditions listed here will also have his name confessed before the Father and the holy angels. Of course, this is a tremendous reward! To be honored and receive glory before the Father and His angelic ministers by the Lord Jesus Christ! Such hearkens back to Jesus’ statements when He was on earth: “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven” (Matt 10:32-33). So many people understand these verses to mean that confessing Jesus before men is a condition for eternal salvation. But such are in grievous error! To proclaim this is to add works to the requirements for eternal life, thus fatally marring the saving message of Christ. Standing up for Christ and confessing His name can be a hard work. Hostilities often ensue with one’s identification with Jesus. But to those who endure such in a faithful confession come honor and glory in the presence of God the Father and His angels.

Corroboration for such an interpretation as this is found in the words of Paul to Timothy: “If we endure [in our confession of Christ] we shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him [by failing to identify with Him and confess Him], He also will deny us [in this context, reigning with Him]” (2 Tim 2:12). These two conditional clauses are found in a chiastic literary structure, in which they are parallel to each other. On one hand, the Christian who confesses Jesus Christ will be honored and co-glorified with Christ. On the other, the Christian who denies Christ, by failing to identify with Him in a faithful confession, will be denied such privilege.

Thus, in the admonition of Jesus Christ to the church in Sardis, we see that the privilege of walking with Christ in intimacy, at a future time in His kingdom, is dependent upon preparing oneself for such, illustrated by an unsoiled, bright white garment, worn by virtue of the fact that one is an overcoming, and worthy Christian! Yet this is not the extent of this vital thread of revelatory material permeating John’s Apocalypse.

Admonition to the church in Laodicea to buy white garments (Rev 3:18)
Throughout my Christian years I have often heard that the man without a wedding gown in the parable of the Wedding Feast lacked the imputed righteousness of Christ, which is parabolically identified for us as the garment itself. But is that the best interpretation, or is it merely the one that fits our theology best, doing the least damage to it? It is the contention of this paper that the latter is the case.

Continuing on in our excursion through the book of Revelation, we touch down on Jesus Christ’s admonition to the lukewarm church in Laodicea. Thinking that they were rich, this church was actually “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked” (Rev 3:17). Jesus’ advice for them was given in the following manner:

I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.

Whatever it means to “buy” from Jesus “white garments,” one thing can be certainly said: this language does not (and indeed cannot!) denote the free gift of eternal life that brings complete judicial justification and imputed righteousness. The answer to their lukewarm condition is to do works. The purchase price for the white garment has already been discussed above: being “worthy” of it by keeping from defilement and succeeding in victory over our spiritual enemies. In order to walk with Jesus in white, one must prepare for that honor, being capacitated for such by faithful endurance until death or rapture.

One cannot help but note the promise of Jesus Christ to the born again members of the church of Laodicea. (Are they saved? Of course. Jesus’ exhortation to them was not, “get saved” but, “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.) “To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne” (Rev 3:21). The one who overcomes will “walk with” Jesus in “white” and “sit with” Him on His throne. Make note of the fact; thus far, that the language we are taking consideration of is that of merit and not of gift or imputation.

The twenty-four elders wearing victory wreaths (Gk: stephanos) and clothed in white robes (Rev 4:4)
As most know, the book of Revelation can be separated into three parts: 1) the things which John had seen, 2) the things which are, and 3) the things which will take place after this (Rev 1:19). At the beginning of the last section the readers become privy to a great heavenly scene. It is none other than the throne room of God. Round God’s throne are twenty-four other thrones, at which sat twenty-four elders (Rev 4:1-4). The text says:

Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and on the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white robes; and they had crowns of gold on their heads.

Who are these twenty-four elders? John Walvoord states, “Only the church which is raptured before chapter 4 is properly complete in heaven and eligible for reward at the judgment seat of Christ” (The Revelation of Jesus Christ p 106). As Rev 4:1 states, this begins the section of those things which are to come. They are not angels, as their song certainly shows in 5:9, “… You… have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” (I am aware of the textual problem here. This is the Majority Text reading, which I always favor. But other factors corroborate this reading as we shall see).

This scene in heaven occurs in the future from the perspective of John’s writings. They occur subsequent to his time and prior to the Great Tribulation narratives which are to follow. Such considerations narrow the identity of these elders down to a representative collection of church age overcomers who have been raptured and rewarded at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

These elders are arrayed in the manner of those who overcome in their Christian testimonies until the end. They are clothed in white robes, which we have already determined are only granted to those who by the testimony of their lives are found worthy of such. It is by triumphant, victorious endurance in their confession for Christ that such honor is won. Furthermore, they are pictured wearing victory crowns (Gk: stephanos). This is indeed the crown that Paul himself strove for and should be a focus of our every endeavor:

Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown [Gk: stephanos]. Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified. (1 Cor 9:24-27)

Paul was under no illusion that he indeed would attain to this glory. Therefore, he exercised unto godliness, strictly disciplining himself so as not to forfeit the prize. Lastly, we note that these elders sat on thrones. The privilege to such has already been seen to be conditioned on the overcoming life that Paul sought to develop in himself and encourage in the church (cf 1 Cor 9-24-27 with Rev 3:21).

In Rev 4:4, the passage under consideration, we fast forward to the glory of the reigning servant kings who won their glory by participating in the sufferings of Christ. Reader, what is keeping you from aspiring to such?

(to be continued)

So you're born again... But will you walk with Jesus in white? Part 1

2007-12-05T19:35:00.000-08:00

Introduction
On every page of the New Testament you will find scriptures pertaining to the doctrine of rewards. It is therefore to be an important consideration in biblical theology and practical Christian experience! This doctrine cannot be overemphasized. It is the lost doctrine. There is no greater motivation unto godliness than the twin truths of rewards and accountability. God knows how to command our affections. He lays out before the Christian the prospects of intimate companionship with Jesus Christ in the ages to come, sharing the inheritance of the kingdom, and being co-glorified with Him who merited His particular messianic glory by obedience to the death on a cross. God knows that “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt 6:21; Lk 12:34). God knows that a heart set on becoming a partaker of the superlative joys and bliss of the coming ages, won by Jesus Christ, and shared by those who are worthy, will pursue sanctification, and hold its confession stedfast and firm until the end. Such activities bring God glory.

When was the last time you saw Lordship Calvinists and Lordship Arminians discussing the great wealth of revelatory material relating to this grand topic? I personally have never read a treatise on rewards by anyone who is, in anyway, Lordship in leaning. Furthermore, there is a great dearth of understanding of the privileges, honors, and glories to be won by faithful, overcoming Christians, and the dire possibility of great punitive loss due to forfeiture at Christ’s second advent by some who consider themselves Free Grace (this is in part due to the inconsistency of their Free Grace position and in part due to their soft-Lordship tendencies). There is a broad and widespread ingnorance of this doctrine, the greatest of all inducements unto personal consecration.

Lordship Salvation handcuffs the Scriptures
Why are Lordship advocates completely missing the mark when it comes to expounding the prospect of the wealth to be won in the coming age and the scriptures warning of severe consequences for failure? Simply put, it is their faulty soteriology holding the Word of God prisoner. Throughout the New Testament we find multitudes of conditional structures guaranteeing various glories, honors, and priviledges to Christians upon fulfilling their provisions, and stipulating great loss for disobedience and unfaithfulness, but they completely gloss over them! Here is where the problem lies for these companion theologies:

Lordship Arminians (LA) consider the rewards of these passages as eternal salvation itself and the failure to fulfill the conditions as tantamount to loss of eternal life and sure damnation. Lordship Calvinists (LC) consider the rewards of these passages as eternal salvation as well, but for them, to attain these prizes one must be a true and genuine believer; failure only manifests the reprobate who had a temporary and spurious faith, not the faith of the elect. Therefore, those chosen by God for salvation are guaranteed to fulfill the provisions of these conditional statements. They are relentlessly and inevitably disposed to endure until the end. Make note that in both cases (LA and LC), failure means hell.

The errors of interpreting the warning passages by the LA and the LC, in a sense, compliment each other. They are both half right and half wrong, but in different parts. The LA correctly identify the intended recipients of these warnings as true Christians, but incorrectly identify the consequence as loss of salvation. The LC correctly understand that the true Christian cannot lose eternal life, but incorrectly comprehend the intended audience, supposing the warnings are only for professors who indeed are not possessors.

When one finds a consistent line of exposition and interpretation that allows him to take the words of Scripture at their face value, in other words, for what they literally say, without the inclusion of secondary assumptions and gratuitous importation, he has found exegetical gold. Such is the Eureka hermeneutics of consistent Free Grace theology. It is only the Free Grace advocate who sees that there are real prospects to be won or lost in the kingdom of the coming ages. They alone see salvation as free and rewards as costly. They alone perceive the sober realities of punitive loss at the coming of Christ. They alone consistently engage the texts with their prima facie reading.

It is a fairly sure sign that a line of exposition is correct when it enables numerous passages to be taken in the simple natural meaning of the terms employed. So long as we cannot accept the obvious sense of words and phrases, but must suppose them to mean something other than they say, we do well to question whether we yet understand them. When Keplar found that the theory of the elliptical orbits of the planets fitted all the known facts of their movements, he felt positive that he had reached the truth upon that matter. The same kind of assurance is gained when a given exposition of Scripture enables numerous and hitherto difficult passages to be understood in their plainest sense, and causes them to give an accordant teaching. (G. H. Lang, Firstborn Sons: Their Rights and Risks, p 117, italics his)

The interpretations of the LC and LA often must argue against the “simple natural meaning of the terms employed” in the scriptures. They will continually render passages meaningless by their ad hoc explanations of them which rely heavily on the inclusion of secondary assumptions not found in the texts. Any number of their doctrines could be falsified by accepting “the obvious sense of [the] words and phrases” of those passages which give their theologies the most trouble.

Lordship Salvation and those with certain Lordship tendencies have handcuffed the Scriptures! So long as the Bible, which is the Word of God, is not allowed to speak for itself, but rather must be understood in the light of the unquestioned traditional and centuries old interpretations handed down through the generations, the prospects for the systematization of a faithful and consistent biblical theology are sadly rendered unattainable.

Lordship theology has taken captive two of the most powerful incentives to godliness: the prospect of vast and sundry rewards and the possiblity of great failure with its grave consequences.

Man without a wedding gown (Matthew 22:1-14)
When a man is given eternal life, he is born into privilege. As the firstborn in the Semitic culture, so is the child of God: possessing of great inheritance possiblity. But as displayed in both Esau and Reuben, these rights can be forfeited by neglect and unfaithfulness. The firstborn sons were trained and capacitated for the responsibilities and privileges of heirship. Their childhood was a time of training for those things to come. In the absence of successful preparation or in the aftermath of great failure the position and rights would be lost.

When one is born into the family of God, he is transported into a new relationship of steward/servant with Christ as His Lord, as well as becoming the child of God. Coming with such responsibility is the high calling to co-glory with Christ – the glory of which He won by faithfully enduring the cross (see Phil 2:8-9; Heb 12:2), and of which He desires to share with His companions (Heb 3:14).

The parable of the Wedding Feast is a sober illustration of the rejection of Christ by the Jewish nation, the destruction of Jerusalem, the temporal and eternal destruction of those who reject the offer of entrance and inheritance in the kingdom, and the tragic loss of the superlative joys of co-glorification with Jesus Christ by a Christian who did not prepare himself for that privilege.

Correspondences of parabolic elements to spiritual realities:
King — God
Son — Jesus
Banquet — intimate, inner fellowship of Jesus Christ in the kingdom of God and the joys associated with it; made up of the companions of Jesus in the ruling aristocracy
Invited guests — the Jewish nation
Servants of the King — prophets, apostles, and evangelists
The city — Jerusalem
Those found in the highways — Gentile nations
Invitation — the upward call unto the prize of co-heirship and co-glory with Christ
King’s gaze at the wedding guests — The Bema; The Judment Seat of Christ
Wedding Garment — the preparation for conditional, superlative eternal glories consisting of a faithful and consecrated life, stedfast until the end
Bound hand and foot — restriction from the prerogatives and glory of co-ruling with Christ, and from the intimacy of Christ’s band of co-heirs
Outer Darkness, or better translated, “the darkness outside,” in other words outside the well lit-banqueting hall, still on the estate of the King — Removed from the joys and glories associated with those who are worthy of such by merit
Weeping and gnashing of teeth — An Oriental expression denoting sorrow (in this case, over lost privilege), remorse (over wasted opportunity), and inner anguish over such loss.

Interpretive Synopsis
God has joy prepared for the Son, likened to a lavish wedding banquet. In Him, God was fully pleased. Jesus, the Son, desires to share this glory with companions, as a bridegroom wishes to share the joy of his wedding with his guests. Israel was God’s chosen nation where the invitation to such joy and glory was first proclaimed by the prophets. These messengers were spitefully treated and many were put to death. In God’s wrath, Jerusalem and around one million of its Jewish inhabitants were destroyed in 70 A.D. by Roman armies. Starting through Peter and continuing through Paul this invitation to the glories of co-heirship with Christ has been preached to the Gentile nations. From such, a wide array of people (“both good and bad”) respond positively to the invitation, not in RSVP only, but fully prepared for privilege and glory at Christ’s coming. Singled out for our consideration is one who responded affirmatively to the call to glory with Christ yet arrived before Him unprepared. Such is restricted from the privileges of Christ’s intimate companions, and from co-ruling authorities and glory with Christ. The same, for a short while, will feel the sting of his bitter loss. Yet as we know with all grief cycles, there is a normal duration for such. Eventually all tears will be wiped away by God (Rev 21:4).

What is interesting in this picture is when the man without a wedding garment is confronted with his lack of preparation for the joy of this feast that he is speechless. This is quite expected. For when the unfaithful Christian, now sinless, is met with the judgment for his actions, he will experience the shame of knowing that such consequence is commensurate with his infidelity (he has no sin nature to rationalize or justify his past behaviors). He will not try to talk his way out of it, for he knows all too well that his life merited such. Without so much as a word, this man will “receive the things done in [his] body” which were “bad” (2 Cor 5:10).

But contrast this with the ‘Christian’ who didn’t enter through the narrow gate (Jesus alone) and didn’t do the will of the Father (believe in Jesus), but rather trusted in his works (Matt 7:22). This one will be anything but speechless: “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?” Do you feel the sincere despair in this man’s voice? He is not some conscious charlatan trying to dupe Jesus. He is all too serious. This one thus prevented from kingdom entrance is all too vocal while the Christian restricted from the superlative glories and honors of being co-heir with Christ has been silenced – much in the same way that someone is who has been confronted with his wrongdoing wherein he has hurt a loved one.

Is there any corroborating evidence to this interpretation? Can it be maintained that the wedding garment in this parable corresponds to the preparations that one takes in this life for the contingent glories of the next? The realities contained in the spiritual truth of this parable concern Christ’s kingdom which He will institute upon His second advent. We may expect to find some things worth noting in the book of Revelation. And, as a matter of fact, we do. But you will have to wait a couple of days to see them.

(to be continued....)

Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior

2007-11-28T12:24:00.000-08:00

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?

2007-11-21T19:19:00.000-08:00

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

My Meeting with Charlie Bing and J.B. Hixson

2007-11-19T16:41:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-07T20:30:00.000-08:00

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.

Are We Robbed of John 3:16? -- What does "believing in" Jesus really mean?

2007-10-29T17:37:00.000-07:00

Introduction
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?

Preliminary Considerations
When we use the colloquial expression "I believe in [somebody or something]" or "I trust [somebody or something]" it is shorthand for a much more precise and specific articulation. If I said, "I believe in the airline pilot" or equally it could be stated, "I trust the airline pilot," the intended meaning is clear: "I believe that the airline pilot is qualified and will get me from point a to point b safely." Or it could equally be articulated as, "I trust the airline pilot is qualified and will get me to my destination safely." In all of this it is important to note that each time we use the phrases, "I believe in _______," and "I trust ________," we have a specific content in mind, in other words, we are believing and trusting in someone/something for something specific and precise.

Now I really do want to emphasize the aforementioned (it cannot be overemphasized!) and I wish to discuss in the comment thread your objections to what I have stated. If you object, please give me an example that makes an exception to the above rule.

If I said the expression, "I trust the babysitter" it does not mean that I trust her in everything! I would not entrust her with my taxes or rely upon her for medical diagnosis. Nor does it imply that I know everything (or even the most major things!) about her that makes her qualified. It simply means that I have (through whatever communication or consideration) been persuaded that she is trustworthy. Obviously what is intended by this somewhat general sounding expression is in reality something very specific and precise: "I believe that the babysitter is well-qualified and able to sufficiently care for my children in a mature, responsible, and safe manner." We cannot take this any other way! These types of phrases are not used in any other way. These somewhat general sounding phrases are colloquial and in actuality convey implied, specific content based upon the context of the situation in which they are expressed and/or the named object(s) itself/themselves.

Contextual Consideration
Dr. J.B. Hixson, Executive Director of the Free Grace Alliance, states, “Many texts clearly explain the Christian gospel (John 1:12; 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47; etc.).” Taken from, “What is the Gospel?” (http://www.hixson.org/docs/Soteriology/What%20is%20the%20Gospel.pdf) Therefore, I wish to choose one of those texts that, according to Dr. Hixson, “clearly explains the Christian gospel.” Let us look at the ever famous John 3:16:

Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ, Son of God, the King of Israel, said, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” – John 3:16 (NKJV)

What is “believing in” Jesus shorthand for? What is the specific content of that belief? In a nutshell, according to the context, "believing in Jesus" means believing that Jesus gives me eternal life and I will not perish, or equally, trusting in Jesus for eternal life and deliverance from perishing. Essentially, “believing in Jesus” is entrusting one’s eternal destiny to Him; it is certain reliance upon Him for the promised result. It really is this simple, and as such lies unencumbered by any additional caveats or qualifications.

Much like:

Believing in the babysitter

= trusting the welfare of your children into the hands of the babysitter, and

Believing in the airline pilot

= trusting your own welfare into the hands of the airline pilot

Believing in Jesus

= trusting your eternal welfare into the hands of Jesus

This is not complicated and it is not rocket science. Jesus states that anyone who simply and certainly relies upon Him for his eternal welfare is eternally secure.

Facilitation of “believing in” Jesus
This brings us to the question: Why would anyone become persuaded that Jesus could be relied upon for one’s eternal well-being? In a nutshell, understanding that Jesus is authorized, qualified, able, and willing to impart eternal life to all who simply “believe in” Him for it can persuade someone to believe in Jesus in the manner as we have so described above. No one can (or will) put their faith in Jesus unless they are first convinced that what He has promised He can and will indeed perform. Therefore, those who are the objects of our evangelistic conversations must be apprised of information that substantiates Jesus’ ability to impart eternal life to all who entrust themselves to Him. Pragmatically speaking, there may be a wide range of things that are absolutely necessary for the objects of our evangelism to understand and assent to in order to come to faith in Jesus. Therefore it behooves us to be liberal with information.

Let me make a simple illustration.

Imagine that I am in need of a reliable, qualified, and appropriate nanny. The simple testimony of a friend’s firsthand experiences with a particular person may be sufficient to persuade me to trust that specific nanny, but then again, it may not. I may need to see lists of educational credentials and employment references, and hold a few interviews with the candidate before I entrust my little ones to this person. Such will depend on my psychological makeup, the subjective factors of my personality, and other variables. But as soon as I am convinced of the qualifications of this nanny, I will believe in her, in other words, trust her.

A single doubt about this person has the potential to preclude me from trusting her. Several doubts will make it even harder. If I don’t believe that she actually graduated with a child development degree from Harvard, as her resume states, trust in the person is precluded.

The same goes with believing in Jesus for eternal life. Men and women will need to be persuaded and assent to a varying number of preliminary and supportive facts about Jesus and themselves before they will become convinced that Jesus’ promise is sure. The amount of information psychologically needed to become persuaded of Christ’s authority and ability to execute His promise is different with everyone. But just as someone can become convinced of the reliability of a nanny with the simple testimony of a friend, so it is possible that there are people out there who can become convinced of Christ’s reliability based upon a small amount of evidence, though we can confidently say that this is not the norm.

An illustration of such a thing is found in John 4:

“And many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, ‘He told me all that I ever did.’” – John 4:39 (NKJV)

Many of the Samaritans of Sychar “believed in” (pisteuw eis) Jesus based solely on the testimony of the immoral and adulterous woman, who stated, “Can this be the Christ?” and said, “He told me all that I ever did.” I admit, again, that this is not a normal occurrence, and that an average person will need to necessarily understand and assent to a varying number of preliminary considerations, in other words, psychological requirements.

There are several things that I personally do not fail to share with those whom I have evangelistic conversations with. These elements will be the subject of an upcoming post.

Final Question
John 3:16 was stated by Jesus around three years before His essential, substitutionary death on the cross for the sins of mankind. He stated to His audience that anyone at that time who “believed in” Him had everlasting life and would not perish. In other words, anyone who entrusted their eternal destiny to Him would have everlasting life and never perish. This was His promise. This is the most used evangelistic verse in the whole Bible. Does this promise still apply to the present time? If it does not, then those of the Traditional Free Grace position necessarily, in some sense, misuse it (if they use it at all), for in line with their position, it is necessarily an inadequate passage relating to lost man the core consideration in the reception of eternal life*. How is it misused? When the statement was given by Jesus, it was a sufficient summary and promise providing for Nicodemus the unadulterated condition for receiving eternal life. Since, for the TFG saving faith includes many more conditions than simply “believing in” Jesus as articulated above, they cannot apply John 3:16 with its intended meaning and usage in context. They necessarily would need to supplement it with a variety of other additional information not contained therein.

If asked the question:

Is John 3:16 a sufficient invitation, summarizing the core appeal to men for the reception of eternal life?

The TFG necessarily have to answer: No.
But Refined Free Grace theology uncomplicatedly answers: Yes.

Conclusion
The bottom line in the ongoing debate between the branches of Free Grace theology is not an issue of what needs to be presented to the lost in the way of information which lifts Jesus up as the authoritative, qualified, and able Guarantor of eternal life to the believer in Him – as I would certainly agree with all Free Grace people that it should include the many elements that they require as objects and/or contents of saving faith. The crucial issue is the meaning of “believing in” Jesus in a soteriological sense. Does “believing in” Jesus in the soteriological sense (you know, faith alone in Christ alone) have the same meaning now as it did in each usage in the Gospel of John?

Let us observe some pertinent points:

1) The Gospel of John was written, by most evangelical scholars’ estimations, in the 90s, which makes it one of the last two books written in our canon. If by the time it was written, “believing in” Jesus meant something different than articulated in the book, it would have behooved John to clearly and unambiguously said so (it would have been quite simple for him!).
2) The Gospel of John is the only book in the canon that has the express written purpose of being evangelistic
3) The Gospel of John does not qualify its examples of pre-cross evangelism in its post-cross conclusion
4) “The simple fact is that the whole Fourth Gospel is designed to show that its readers can get saved in the same way as the people who got saved in John’s narrative. To say anything other than this is to accept a fallacy. It is to mistakenly suppose that the Fourth Gospel presents the terms of salvation incompletely and inadequately. I sincerely hope no grace person would want to be stuck with a position like that.” (Zane Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1”)

The bottom line is not information, as we will all basically agree on what information should be told to the objects of our evangelism. The bottom line is clarity in our evangelistic appeals/invitations. Can we legitimately use verses such as John 3:16; 6:47; 11:25-26, etc. as our simple appeal to faith after lifting up Jesus by our evangelistic conversations? Refined Free Grace says, “yes!” TFG cannot, for they esentially rob it of its sufficient and authoratative decree. It simply is not complete as an evangelistic invitation in their position.

* As a matter of fact, there is not even one verse or passage that clearly articulates a statement providing all that is necessary to be saved in the view of TFG, this necessarily including John 3:16 and Acts 16:31. There is no verse that states, for example, “Believe that Jesus was man, that Jesus was God, that Jesus died a substitutionary death on the cross, that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, and believe in Jesus’ works then you have 1) eternal life, 2) eternal salvation or 3) eternal justification"

Dialogues with the Free Grace Alliance

2007-10-26T23:08:00.001-07:00

I recently have had the opportunity to talk to Charlie Bing, president of the Free Grace Alliance, twice over the past month on the phone. They were great conversations.

The first opportunity I had was October 2nd, the day after I posted 'Whoever [simply] believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God' (1 John 5:1). Do you believe this?. He called me to talk about this article.

He was pleased that the tone of the post was gracious and apart from the vitriole and rhetoric that has been plaguing both sides of the current debate in the Free Grace world. He also stated that, although he does not always agree with my posts, that he believed that they had strong arguments, especially the aforementioned one. For over 30 minutes we discussed some of the issues involved in the debate, doing so with great understanding and interest. His wisdom and graciousness was a testimony to His heart for the Lord Jesus Christ.

I had a wonderful opportunity to discuss with him concerns that I had in the debate. I expressed my sadness over the way that those on the opposing side have misrepresented the Refined Free Grace position, and are continuing to poison the well with their journal articles, blog posts, and emails. We discussed the use of the pejorative, innaccurate, and misleading label that some of the more outspoken advocates of a traditional Free Grace understanding have attached to the position I hold. He, too, was concerned over the same things, and told me that he had been meeting and talking with the players on the other side. Charlie stated that he does not agree with the usage of their coined label. I admitted that in the past I had been caught up in the heat of the moment, and allowed the works of the flesh to manifest themselves in my public remarks, and at the time of the phone call I had already done business with God and repented of such. The funny thing is, that I was informed by a friend that it has been floating around that Charlie called to “rebuke” me. There did not contain in the whole of the phone call a single rebuke or admonition, only encouragement and pleasant sentiments. (Shame on those who continue to poison the well and proliferate innaccurate information!)

I was thoroughly encouraged and inspired by our conversation. Free Grace theology is not a monolithic theology, but has many varying views. There is discussion over various things such as: the content of saving faith, eternal security’s role in saving faith, rapture positions, punitive aspects of the bema, millennial exclusion, aspects of overcomer reward theology, and many others. I am pleased to hear that the FGA is hosting healthy dialogues in these areas.

I also talked to Charlie Bing yesterday for about 40 minutes on the phone. This time I requested his phone call to discuss concerns that I had over comments made by Dennis Rokser on Lou Martuneac’s blog, and questions I had concerning the future of the FGA in relation to those who hold my position. Not wanting to offend anyone, Charlie stated that Dennis’ comments on Lou’s blog need to be tempered with the whole of what he stated in his address (which had 1 Cor 13, the love chapter, as its text). He affirmed the FGA welcome to all flavors of Free Grace theology, and stated that there are four different reasons to join the FGA, one of being which to participate in the discussion of those issues within Free Grace theology itself. I was very happy with these encouraging words.

I furthermore stated my concerns about those who continue to poison the well and throw around the charges of heresy and false gospel, and who email others, spreading their ad hominems. He, too, was disturbed by these things. Some of those who are not so actuated by principles of Christian love in regards to those who take my theological position are not even a part of the FGA, so we could only lament and pray for such people. Others who are a part of the FGA, Charlie has committed to continue to discuss these issues with in order for them to temper their actions and remarks.

But in the end, Charlie is the president and does not have much control over things people either in or out of the FGA say or do. He is, however, a model of temperance, patience, charity, graciousness, and Christian love. He is balanced, cautious, and deliberate in his seeking of the truth, and stated that he does not fully agree with either side. We would all do well to follow his example. I rejoice that he is the president of the FGA and I am optimistic with where his leadership will take it.

Charlie stated that he is coming to San Diego in November to attend and present a paper at the Evangelical Theological Society’s meeting (which will have a theme of discipleship in the 21st century). He graciously proposed that we meet during that time to discuss theology, promote understanding within the greater umbrella of Free Grace theology, share vision, and talk about concerns. I humbly accepted his invitation and look forward with great anticipation to speaking with him face to face.

Last year, during John MacArthur and Nathan Busenitz’s series on Lordship Salvation, Charlie Bing stated this in one of the comment threads:

“I believe that a person is saved when they believe in Jesus’ promise to give them eternal life.” (Pulpit Blog Comments)

This is exactly how I would state things – exactly. This is the type of language that others in the more traditional Free Grace position criticize. I brought this quote of his back to his attention on the phone and he responded that he indeed believes such, but that the quote itself is provided within a context of Christ’s cross work being understood. I responded back to him that I believe that it is precisely the understanding of the cross work of Christ that facilitates one being persuaded of “Jesus’ promise to give [him] eternal life.” I was encouraged to hear that he did not distance himself from his comment, but rather embraced it. I was able to see many areas of agreement with Charlie, and some where future dialogue will be necessary to facilitate greater understanding on all sides of this debate (traditional, refined, middle-of-the-road, and undecided Free Gracers). I believe that I have much I can learn from Charlie, in many areas, and look forward to picking his brain even further. I also desire the opportunity to clearly articulate my deep theological convictions to him, first-hand. I have tired of reading all the mis-information about my position in both journal and electronic media.

All in all, my conversations with Charlie Bing were both profitable and encouraging!

I also have spoken on the phone with J.B. Hixson, the new Executive Director of the Free Grace Alliance. I wanted to bring my concerns and questions to him as well, wondering what his vision for the future of the FGA looked like. He welcomed my membership and stated that he was interested in continuing to dialogue with those who hold to my theological position. We spoke for quite sometime, and I found him knowledgeable and gracious. By the end of the conversation I was thoroughly pleased and encouraged with his sense of direction and focus. In his last email correspondence, he wrote, “I appreciate you and your passion for free grace. Let's keep getting the message out. And I look forward to some stimulating theological repartee in the near future.” Charlie Bing mentioned to me that J.B. would also be joining him in San Diego and suggested we all get together during that time. I am thrilled to meet both of them.

Lastly, I have spoken with Dr. Stephen R. Lewis, President of Rocky Mountain Bible College and Seminary, who is also the Secretary of the FGA. I first talked to him years ago when I stumbled upon an endnote in Rene’ Lopez’s commentary on Romans that referenced a book of essays by various authors given in honor of Zane C. Hodges (which he was the editor of). I initially called him to find out the details of this publishing. He thought that it would be out in the following year. Well it didn’t surface and I called him about a month ago to see what the status of it was. He stated that the Grace Evangelical Society was going to publish the book. GES is in the process of getting several books out now, but that sometime next year the essay book ought to be out. I also had the pleasure of talking to him about the current debate in Free Grace theology. He is unapologetically resigned to the Refined Free Grace theology position, and has spoken to the FGA about it, asking if it would be a problem. They assured him that it would not be, to which I am thoroughly glad and encouraged. I was very pleased that someone of my theological persuasion is on the Leadership council of the FGA.

So much poisoning of the well is happening around the blogosphere, journal articles, and emails. Charges of heresy and false gospel have been fashioned to pre-empt a mature discussion of the issues by those who, I am persuaded, have felt their traditions challenged. It is most unfortunate that there has been a tireless and emotional effort, by some, to bring the GES, Bob Wilkin, and Zane Hodges into disrepute. Theological convictions can produce many emotive behaviors. The sides in this debate must become dispassionate and civil, discussing these issues in a mature and charitable way, speaking and operating in the Spirit and with love.

I have an optimism about the discussions within the Free Grace Alliance. I only hope that they can help temper those who have done much to stir the pot and emotionally turn away people from intellectually and biblically considering the various positions. We must have a mature dialogue, and a prayerful and considerate appeal to the Bible as we flesh out the differences of position within blessed Free Grace Theology.

Evangelism and Free Grace Theology in India

2007-10-09T16:22:00.000-07:00

Dear Readers of Free Grace Theology Blog:

Tomorrow I set off on a journey that has been in the making for over a year. The Lord has seen fit to orchestrate a missions endeavor in the great country of India for me and 17 other individuals. During this trip, the Lord willing and providing, the glory of the Lord will be proclaimed, freedom will be preached to the captives, consolation and compassion will be shown to the broken-hearted, and the good news of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ will be offered.

If I am one whom you consider a brother in the Lord, and I have found grace in your eyes, please bring this whole trip to the Lord in thoughtful prayer. I appreciate every petition offered on our behalf.

The spiritual warfare that has been waged against me during the course of the last few weeks has been intense and increasing as each day moves nearer our purposes.

I consider myself insufficient to rise to this task. I am humbling myself under the mighty hand of our God, and in faith, seeking His strength. May I decrease that Christ may increase.

As tomorrow draws closer, my mind wanders on those things in life which are most important to me. As I picked up my daughter this afternoon from school, she wouldn't let go of my arm, and said, "I don't want you to go to India, Daddy!" It took every ounce of strength I could muster to keep myself from tears. I love my family very much, and although, the Lord directing, I will only be gone 11 days, the thought of separation from the one's I love pierces right through me.

Of course, I have explained the purposes and objectives of this trip to my daughter. She knows that people are slipping away into eternity apart from the message of life. She considers herself to be my partner, here on the homefront. I am so proud of my kids and their prayers. They understand that such activities are a matter of life and death. As I think about the magnitude and scope of such responsibility, I cringe and feel shame that I have spent so much time lately debating theology on the internet, and have failed to a significant degree, to apply myself to the saving message of Jesus Christ and to those whom he died for.

Yes, I will miss my family!

At this time, I am reminded of a passage I heard on my CD bible in the car today:

Luke 18:29-30

So He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life."

This will be the 4th time I have been to India, and the third time I have travelled to this part. I have family there! And many more brothers and sisters who will be born in the family of God. My heart does ache to see those whom I love over there. I wish to encourage them, and, if perchance the Lord will use me, impart unto them some spiritual blessing. I desire to share in fellowship with them, pray with them, and embrace them.

May the sufficiency be of God and not myself. May the glory be to the one who loved me, and gave His life or me. May I not fail to do the work that God has prepared for me.

John 4:34-38

Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work. Do you not say, 'There are still four months and then comes the harvest'? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are already white for harvest! And he who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, that both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together. For in this the saying is true:'One sows and another reaps.' I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored, and you have entered into their labors."

My desire is to plant and reap on this trip. I want to eat of the heavenly food which the Lord has for me. Would you enter into this labor with me? Your labor will receive wages! Fast and pray for this endeavor.

My brothers and sisters in the Lord: I love you, and I await the day that we will recline at the Lord's table together in the kingdom of God.

Press on! Press on! Looking unto Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him, endured the cross and despised the shame!

Let us run the race that is set before us with endurance!

your humbled fellow slave,

Antonio

PS: Please check my blog out at:

India Campaign Journal

daily to see prayer requests and updates from the field.