Monday, April 14, 2008

Paul and the Holy Spirit at odds with Redefined Free Grace

In a recent article at freegracefreespeech: The Powerless "Crossless Gospel" JP summarized a list of questions that he does not believe the Redefined Free Grace camp has or even can sufficiently answer. One of the questions raised that really hits home with me is #3: that of the role of the crosswork of Jesus in evangelism. I responded in the comments of that article that one of the most compelling scriptures to me in the early stages of my exposure to, consideration of, and ultimate rejection of "The Crossless Gospel" is 1 Cor 1:17-25.

1 Cor 1:17-25 NASB: 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

In this passage the Bible is clear that the cross is oft considered "foolishness" and a "stumbling block" to unbelievers. It is crystal clear that Paul, under inspiration, does not see these facts surrounding Jesus as necessarily helpful to provoke the lost to saving faith in Jesus.

In contrast, Redefined Free Grace would have us be appeased that they always present these facts in their presentations of "the saving message" because they are powerful and persuasive reasons for the lost to believe in Jesus. Though in some cases that may be true, the obvious problem with this thinly veiled attempt to appease is that it fails to address why Paul, or anyone else, would/should include these items when it is known that they are in fact
obstacles to saving faith. To be consistent, the adherents of Redefined Free Grace would have to ultimately conclude that it is completely acceptable to entirely leave out any known stumbling block as part of "the saving message". It is inconsistent for Redefined Free Grace to claim that there is anything that needs to "always be said" in a presentation of "the saving message" save whatever is necessary to convince the lost to believe what they see as the only belief that ultimately matters -- that "Jesus guarantees Everlasting Life to all who simply believe in him for it."

If Redefined Free Grace sees us as guilty of obfuscating "the saving message" for insisting that the lost accept such facts as the deity or crosswork of Christ, then they are essentially guilty of the same thing by always bringing up those same facts in the first place and possibly turning the lost one away by even mentioning these intellectually offensive and controversial facts surrounding Jesus.

No, I'm convinced that Paul and the Holy Spirit at face value have got it right. The only consistent reason to always bring known stumbling blocks into the presentation is if they are necessary elements of contemporary saving faith in Jesus. In light of this, the attempts of Redefined Free Grace to appease it's naysayers by claiming they always present this information is revealed as nothing more than that -- an attempt to appease men and appear more orthodox than they really are. It is language to try to appear in harmony with Christianity when in fact they are ravaging it from the inside and destroying the very Free Grace message they claim to hold so dear. No, they don't see it this way, but that doesn't change the result.

As I said, when I was first exposed to, considered, and rejected The Crossless Gospel it was pretty much this passage alone that convinced me to stay the course. I've learned much since then and have added other reasons, but this passage stands at the core of my conviction that there is more to the biblically req'd content of contemporary saving faith than the minimum proposed by Redefined Free Grace.

What say you?
Stephen

Last edited on 14 April 2008 @ 23:55 for typos and minor corrections.

14 comments:

  1. Stephen:

    This is a potent article on a number of levels. For now just one.

    You wrote, “To be consistent, the adherents of Redefined Free Grace would have to ultimately conclude that it is completely acceptable to entirely leave out any known stumbling block as part of ‘the saving message’.”

    No better evidence of this exists than Antonio da Rosa saying that even a conscious rejection of the Lord’s deity should be “put on the back burner,” and left there.

    Zane Hodges views the cross, resurrection and deity of Christ as “excess baggage,” in a soul winning encounter. Hodges wrote, “(People) are saved when they understand God’s offer of eternal life through Jesus and believe it. That’s when people are saved. And that’s the only time when people are saved. All of the excess baggage that we bring into our encounter with unsaved sinners is just that, excess baggage!”


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Stephen,

    This is a very compelling article. When you first made a comment about this on my blog the other day, I liked how you contrasted Redefined Free Grace with the Apostle Paul and the Holy Spirit. I had never really heard it put exactly that way I guess. You are arguing from the Scriptures and once again the opposition is silenced. What can they say? They can't say anything so they don't say anything. I'd like to continue to highlight the difference between Redefined Free Grace and the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

    Redefined Free Grace says:

    "The preaching of the cross greatly facilitates the process of bringing men to faith in God's Son." (Zane Hodges, How To Lead People To Christ, Part 1, JOTGES 13, Autumn 00: 11) But is this what the Bible says Zane?

    "Why not present the cross and resurrection as the reason for believing that Christ will give them eternal life as a gift the moment they believe this? Let us share the good news that Jesus Christ gives eternal life." (John Niemela, The Cross in John's Gospel, JOTGES 16, Spring 03:28) If the cross is optional information to believe (as you advocate), I can give you several reasons not to present it:

    The Apostle Paul through the H.S. says:

    "For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:18a).

    "God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." (1 Cor. 1:21b)

    "but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:23)

    "But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished." (Gal. 5:11)

    Like you Stephen, I'll stick with the Apostle Paul and the Holy Spirit!

    JP

    ReplyDelete
  3. Stephen,

    Lou makes a great point. How can Hodges affirm two contradictory statements: the cross is "excess baggage that we bring into our encounter" but at the same time "greatly facilitates the process of bringing men to faith in God's Son"?? It just doesn't make sense!

    JP

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good morning Gents, and thanks for your comments.

    jp: "How can Hodges affirm two contradictory statements: ..."

    While I disagree with Hodges overall conclusion, I don't see these statements as necessarily contradictory. He sees many of the facts of Jesus as "helpful" but not "needed".

    e.g. If I'm trying to get my one year old to walk and entice him from a few steps away with a little red car that he responds to -- the little red car is both helpful and excess at the same time since it is not inherent to the act of walking. In a similar way I think Zane views the cross as a little red car of sorts. The problem, of course, is that not all kids respond to little red cars and some may even get grumpy about it. To be consistent with their soteriology, Redefined Free Grace must logically conclude that it is in fact absurd to ALWAYS mention the cross or any other arbitrary fact about the biblical Jesus. The only reason to bring any of that up at all, to be consistent with their soteriology, is if it's viewed as helpful to soliciting a response to faith in Jesus for Everlasting Life.

    Redefined Free Grace sees the cross as something of a little red car, whereas I see the cross, to continue the analogy, as biblically somewhat parallel to standing: you can't walk if you don't first get on your feet! Standing is not the end goal, the goal is to walk, but standing is a required precursor to that happening.

    The contradiction, as I see it, isn't that Zane views the cross as "helpful but not needed", bur rather that he views the cross as "not needed but always presented". If it's "not needed" then why "always present" it? That is, at best, inconsistent and contradicts their claim to a "consistent free grace" message.

    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  5. Stephen,

    Thanks for clarifying that for me. This was very helpful:

    "The contradiction, as I see it, isn't that Zane views the cross as "helpful but not needed", bur rather that he views the cross as "not needed but always presented". If it's "not needed" then why "always present" it? That is, at best, inconsistent and contradicts their claim to a "consistent free grace" message."

    g'night,
    JP

    ReplyDelete
  6. Glad you found it helpful JP. I'm critical of the logic and arguments of Redefined Free Grace but I want to be fair and accurate, as I know you do as well. You're a blessing to me JP, and to the cause of Christ.

    Iron sharpens iron,
    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  7. The cross must be the focal point of the salvation message. It identifies the sinfulness of man as well as the righteousness and redemptive work of Christ.

    Without the cross, what message of salvation is there to offer?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for stopping in Gordon and chiming in. It is my view that a plain reading of scripture shows that these are more than just reasons to believe, though they certainly can be, but that they are in fact intrinsic elements of contemporary saving faith.

    I visited your blog yesterday and I appreciate the call to civility. I have been a passionate voice from time-to-time for my side of the debate. What I took from your article is to remain passionate about, and faithful to, our conviction of the truth but not "mean". I agree, yet at the same time there is no more important message in all of Christendom than the gospel so any disagreement on this matter seems inherently divisive. True, that doesn't mean one is justified being mean about it but the simple truth is that this particular doctrine is not one that lends itself to an "agree to disagree" attitude as all sides believe that nothing less than the Everlasting souls of the people we witness to at stake.

    What do you think you of my take on 1 Cor 1:17-25? And, no, I'm not asking so I can pounce on you if you disagree with me -- you're welcome to comment either way as my allegiance is to the Word and not to any tradition of man.

    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  9. Stephen, thanks for your response to my comment as well as your visit to my blog.

    I believe your interpretation of I Cor. 1:17-25 is correct. I think the meaning of Romans 10:9-10 corroborates this. To believe that Jesus is Lord, one must know in whom they are placing their faith. By the same token, if one is to believe that God has raised Him from the dead, it follows that one should know how He died in the first place.

    In regard to the post on my blog, my hope is that it will cause all who read it (myself included) to take a deep breath and give due consideration before firing off a post, e-mail or comment. I am not looking for compromise between parties.

    There are people involved in this debate who have things to say that are worth hearing, but I fear that sometimes their message is lost behind the methods with which is presented.

    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey Stephen,

    I like the globe and the front page, nice touch! I love heavenlyheartburn's comment:

    "I believe your interpretation of I Cor. 1:17-25 is correct. I think the meaning of Romans 10:9-10 corroborates this. To believe that Jesus is Lord, one must know in whom they are placing their faith. By the same token, if one is to believe that God has raised Him from the dead, it follows that one should know how He died in the first place." (bold added)

    This is one of the points I emphasize in my article "Three Resurrection Signs".

    John clearly tells his readers what they are to believe (Jn. 19:35, 20:31), and it's more than what is set forth in Jn. 6:47!

    JP

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gordon, thanks for your thoughts. I also like your previous comment. "The cross must be the focal point of the salvation message. It identifies the sinfulness of man as well as the righteousness and redemptive work of Christ."

    Amen! The entire message fairly pivots on the crosswork of Christ. Apprehending the finished work of Christ to redeem fallen man sums up all that is needed. Scripture says it so beautifully:

    Rom 5:8
    "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

    John 3:14-18
    "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

    The message is profound yet simple enough that I believe my four year old sufficiently apprehended it a couple of months ago.

    The macrocosm of scripture is supportive of the conclusion that these truths are the content of contemporary saving faith. Only a micro contextual view can claim support for the idea that these issues are candidates for the backburner.

    If the inspiration of the Word through the Holy Spirit is to be trusted then the post resurrection message of Everlasting Life must encompass Paul, and there is no justification for Paul to have insisted on no other message than "Christ crucified" unless he (and the Holy Spirit that inspired it) thought it was necessary content of contemporary saving faith regardless of the cultural and intellectual offense of that message.

    In the Word,
    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  12. jp: "I like the globe and the front page, nice touch!"

    Thanks, I was just tryin' to spruce things up a bit. The globe kinda worked for me but I found an "old map" image that seems less generic and fits the mood and color scheme better. I'm very proficient technologically but am artistically challenged. :-)

    jp: "This is one of the points I emphasize in my article "Three Resurrection Signs". "

    And an excellent article it is, at least the version of it that I last read (which was only a few pages long at the time if I remember correctly). I see no reason to artificially limit expressions of the saving message to John as some in Redefined Free Grace have done. Even so, a biblical case for the content of saving faith as we understand it can be built from John. As I said in the previous comment -- it requires a micro contextual interpretation to whittle the redemptive message and work of Christ out of contemporary saving faith.

    I'm a macro kinda guy myself,
    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  13. The following is from Alvin, posted on a different thread, which I moved here since it relates to this article and not the article in which he originally posted it:

    Alvin said:
    Good morning Stephen
    [...]
    I believe the point is that the door is wide open to those who come in child like dependency. They can come right in and crawl up on Jesus lap and He will give them that living water (Rev 22:17).

    We can’t say to them “you don’t know enough, so you can’t come.”

    No one can come in their wisdom, only in child like dependency. They believe that He is able to save them to the uttermost.

    Were not to be like Jesus disciples who wanted to keep them from coming to Jesus, just like they were “children.”

    The door is always open to those who come like that. No matter what little bit of knowledge they might have, they see their need and Christ sufficiency that is what matters.

    Mark 10:13-16 Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
    But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the Kingdom of God.
    “Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”
    And He took them up in His arms, laid His hands on them, and blessed them.

    alvin

    ReplyDelete
  14. Good Lord's day to you,

    FYI, visiting family that came in from out of town this weekend so been wrapped up elsewhere. Will get back though, thanks for your patience.

    Stephen

    ReplyDelete