tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-993893167456535134.post6581538430888618805..comments2023-03-27T02:08:39.060-05:00Comments on The Land of Reason: Beheading Hodges' Hydra - Part 2 of 3Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-993893167456535134.post-63031115994981963542008-10-14T13:42:00.000-05:002008-10-14T13:42:00.000-05:00My previous comment was in response to someone who...My previous comment was in response to someone who actually commented under a different article. Sorry about that.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-993893167456535134.post-68021856153390513062008-10-13T15:15:00.000-05:002008-10-13T15:15:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-993893167456535134.post-76560344134590662402008-10-13T15:01:00.000-05:002008-10-13T15:01:00.000-05:00Hi Greg,Thanks for reading, and for your comment. ...Hi Greg,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for reading, and for your comment. You are right about the Gospel of John - John certainly did not plan to hand out copies of his Gospel on the street corner! Not that we shouldn't do that, of course, but authorial intent is essential to consider when studying the Scriptures (anything, actually, but especially the Word).<BR/><BR/>And I agree that Hodges' desire to find an enumerated list is quite unnatural to ancient communication, especially the Hebrews, as you pointed out. I discussed John 3 at length in <A HREF="http://thelandofreason.blogspot.com/2008/02/case-for-cross-part-1.html" REL="nofollow">a previous article</A>, and I agree that the way of redemption was very much pictured and described, rather than listed point-by-point as Hodges apparently requires.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for visiting, and I'll be sure to read your review at Lou's blog when he posts it later this week.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-993893167456535134.post-4419247694124419032008-10-13T14:53:00.000-05:002008-10-13T14:53:00.000-05:00Hi Danny,I see what you were saying about the Cont...Hi Danny,<BR/><BR/>I see what you were saying about the Context Group. I think we are on the same page, just coming to it from different perspectives. Thanks for explaining!Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-993893167456535134.post-6519758629154450722008-10-12T01:15:00.000-05:002008-10-12T01:15:00.000-05:00Rachel,I plan to return and read the article again...Rachel,<BR/><BR/>I plan to return and read the article again, but I had a few thoughts that are related to your points about the historical context. One is the context in which the GoJ would have been distributed. I think Pastor Tom Stegall made a footnote about this in one of his articles. At that time, to copy a manuscript from the GoJ (21 chapters) would have taken an immense amount of time and resources. It would have been costly to copy and distribute. There would have been a limited number of scrolls. You couldn't hand out the GoJ like a gospel tract like we can do today. Instead, you would've sent it to churches where it would be preached or with missionaries who would use it to preach.<BR/><BR/>Another thing is the picturesque nature of Hebraic communication fits the content of faith being illustrated or depicted in verses like John 3:14-15 and 6:51-58 rather than enumerated in the analytical style Hodges seems to demand.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-993893167456535134.post-26020662781651009192008-10-09T02:04:00.000-05:002008-10-09T02:04:00.000-05:00Hi Rachel. I saw your reply to my comment on the ...Hi Rachel. I saw your reply to my comment on the Context Group at Lou's blog. I wasn't sure if you'd visit that thread again, so I'm replying here. I definitely agree with you that the Context Group has made great contributions to understanding the Bible. I didn't mean to suggest that we should throw out all of their observations just because they are wrong on the Gospel and OSAS. I was just afraid for anyone who would look into their work and come away thinking they have to be loyal to God to be saved. I'm glad you've pointed out before that we should read everything they say with a careful eye. I'm also thankful that you realize they take the Client-Patron relationship too far when they apply it to saving faith. I think it's fine that you see everyday faith in terms of a client-patron relationship, since you don't take it to the extreme the Context Group does.<BR/><BR/>I also like JP Holding's Tektonics site. I just wish he would affirm OSAS. But yes, he does a great job debunking Skeptics. <BR/><BR/>My observation about 1 Thessalonians 5:10 was to debunk the normal Context Group idea that loyalty is necessary for final entrance into the Kingdom. The words "wake" and "sleep" are the same Greek words (gregoreo and katheudo) used in verses 6 and 7. Whether believers are morally watching/sober or morally sleeping/drunk, they will live together with Lord, because He died for us. Obviously loyalty or lack of loyalty has nothing to do with entering the Kingdom. 1 Thessalonians 5:10 states what should be obvious, proving that Jesus' Death (and by high-context implication, His Resurrection) is more than sufficient to make us eternally secure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-993893167456535134.post-11882829823714070682008-10-08T22:36:00.000-05:002008-10-08T22:36:00.000-05:00You are correct Lou. GES and it's advocates redefi...You are correct Lou. GES and it's advocates redefine terms to sound much more orthodox than they are, in much the same way cults do to sound more orthodox and in line with mainstream Christianity. Once we made it clear to our church leadership that we weren't on a witch hunt, but that our claims were documented and accurate, our pastor issued a statement to distance ourselves from Wilkin/GES. We are thankful for our pastor affirming that our church will not waiver on the content of the Gospel!<BR/><BR/>Zane Hodges' <I>The Hydra's Other Head</I> article confirms what we concluded then... that our view of the Gospel and GES' are mutually exclusive. ZH has now also confirmed the logical conclusion of their view -- that churches like mine are "theological legalists" in the view of GES and Redefined Free Grace. ZH's article confirms that we were right to distance ourselves from GES, Wilkin, and those who share their reduced view of the content of saving faith.<BR/><BR/>It's been over a year since Wilkin was at our church but other churches and individuals must be warned and informed as well. <A HREF="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Your site</A> provided vital resources at that time to confirm that our concerns over GES were, and still are, well founded.<BR/><BR/>It's been quite a year. God is good and His grace is free!Orangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13385339200643211924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-993893167456535134.post-60031126654623920132008-10-08T18:10:00.000-05:002008-10-08T18:10:00.000-05:00Rachel:I appreciate this review on several levels....Rachel:<BR/><BR/>I appreciate this review on several levels. And the thread comments from you and Stephen are very helpful from you and Stephen.<BR/><BR/>You wrote, <I>But please realize, this is a troublesome teaching coming from CG advocates, which the vast majority of FG churches (to say nothing of other orthodox Christian churches) would reject in a heartbeat. I dare say that if most FG churches who currently accept Wilkin and Hodges were aware of this teaching of theirs regarding sin, the number of requests for speaking engagements would seriously decline, even more so than it may already have done. It is concerning how much parsing of words and cover-ups come from the CG side of this debate</I>.<BR/><BR/>IMO, most of the churches who accept Hodges and Wilkin do so without really understanding or having had fully disclosed to them the clear unvarnished truth of the GES reductionist heresy.<BR/><BR/>I remember your experience when Wilkin came to your church and it was not until you engaged him in e-mails that the full and disturbing truth of his teaching unfolded.<BR/><BR/>Many people we interact with are unaware of the <I>Crossless</I> gospel coming from Hodges and Wilkin. They can hardly believe when we lay out in simple terms what it is Hodges is teaching. They think, “<I>it can't possibly be true that Hodges and Wilkin teach this</I>!” Then they inevitably find out it is true and are repulsed by it.<BR/><BR/>Dave at the <I><B>FG Believer</B></I> blog just had that rude awakening. When Rose showed up at his blog, I warned him about her <I>Crossless</I> friends (and their unethical behavior) in the GES to make sure he was not lead to them by Rose without warning. He though I was possibly overstating the problem. Well, he found out for himself, like they all do eventually, who have not already been deceived and their conscience seared.<BR/><BR/>The “<I>no sin barrier</I>” teaching is not widely know, but it will be.<BR/><BR/>In any event, GES has lost significant numbers in membership and financial support. Venues that once hosted GES events will no longer open the door to Hodges and Wilkin. I am grateful for the stand against the heresy coming from GES. Many more might have been deceived if the teaching of Hodges had not been fully exposed by men like Pastors Stegall and Rokser.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-993893167456535134.post-64728858483104831402008-10-08T15:40:00.000-05:002008-10-08T15:40:00.000-05:00Regarding the issue of CG people trying to find a ...Regarding the issue of CG people trying to find a verse/passage that explicitly states the content of saving faith, usually the verses they do offer have Jesus saying something like, "believe in me and you will receive eternal life". CG advocates then make the leap that the <I>promised gift</I> is being listed as the <I>necessary content</I> of saving faith. But of course, this isn't necessarily so. Jesus is simply saying that the lost should believe "in him" (which isn't specifically explained), and one <B>result</B> of such belief will be the granting of eternal life to the one who believes. But the question still remains, <I>what</I> is it we are to believe in order to accurately say we "believe in Jesus"? Now, please note, I am not saying that I don't know. I've clearly stated in various places that I think we CAN and DO know what it is we need to believe. My point is simply that the verses the CG people point to as telling us the content of saving faith do NOT do so.<BR/><BR/>1 Tim 1:16 isn't really any different. It shows that people believe in Jesus in order to receive eternal life. That doesn't mean that's the ONLY thing they need to believe. Plus, the entire NT (indeed, the entire BIBLE) makes it clear that our SIN is what separates us from reconciliation with God and that eternal life. Therefore a person must clearly acknowledge that they are sinners and accept the method of payment for their sin (Jesus' death and resurrection) in order to receive the eternal life that they do not have.<BR/><BR/>This reveals a major fundamental difference between CG advocates and the rest of the FG community (and really, the rest of the Christian community - I have found CG to be very unique in this view). <A HREF="http://www.faithalone.org/gospel.html" REL="nofollow">They teach</A> that sin is actually NO LONGER a barrier between the lost and God! They hold that our only problem is that we lack eternal life. Thus it makes sense logically in their system that the lost would not be <I>required</I> to believe in Jesus' death and resurrection, since it's merely a fact that ALLOWS them to have eternal life, but is not connected to anything that will ever change.<BR/><BR/>In contrast, I hold (as well as the majority of Christianity) that people's sin still separates them from God. I do not see any neutrality in Scripture, where people don't have sin but still don't have eternal life. I see that people either have sin and are condemned, or have no sin (Christ's righteousness) and are given eternal life.<BR/><BR/>I have discussed this issue rather extensively at my group blog <A HREF="http://blog.jessecamacho.com/free_grace/?p=31" REL="nofollow">here</A>, and I have provided a detailed explanation of my reasons for rejecting that view <A HREF="http://blog.jessecamacho.com/free_grace/?p=41" REL="nofollow">here</A>. Rather than copy and paste all or major portions of those articles and comments, I recommend interested readers to check them out and bring any comments/questions here.<BR/><BR/>But please realize, this is a troublesome teaching coming from CG advocates, which the vast majority of FG churches (to say nothing of other orthodox Christian churches) would reject in a heartbeat. I dare say that if most FG churches who currently accept Wilkin and Hodges were aware of this teaching of theirs regarding sin, the number of requests for speaking engagements would seriously decline, even more so than it may already have done. It is concerning how much parsing of words and cover-ups come from the CG side of this debate.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-993893167456535134.post-61598237465727959192008-10-08T14:21:00.000-05:002008-10-08T14:21:00.000-05:00Hi Lou,Yes, the "war" comment can only apply to Ho...Hi Lou,<BR/><BR/>Yes, the "war" comment can only apply to Hodges. No one is "at war" with any part of the Bible, except perhaps for Hodges and his followers, who must twist obvious passages and outright ignore other passages and facts in order to justify their strange new theology.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-993893167456535134.post-17251839452929850402008-10-08T12:11:00.000-05:002008-10-08T12:11:00.000-05:00You mentioned earlier that Redefined FG can't meet...You mentioned earlier that Redefined FG can't meet it's own standard of a single verse that explicitly states what they claim is the content of saving faith. I've pointed that out to Redefined FG advocates as well and have been given several attempts to meet their own standard. To be clear, the standard they must meet is a single verse/passage that states explicitly that "Jesus gives everlasting life to all who simply believe in him for it."<BR/><BR/>1 Tim 1:16: <B>It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.</B> <BR/><BR/>First, it's outside of John. This isn't a problem for 'us' but it violates RFG's self-imposed restriction that there is no expression of the saving message outside of John.<BR/>Second, even if they concede this point, their interpretation violates the immediate context which reveals that the call to believe is based on Jesus' patient demonstration of mercy to Paul to save him, a sinner. Such a demonstration would be meaningless to those not aware that a) they are a sinner and b) that sin is what separates them from having everlasting life in the first place. <BR/><BR/>1 Tim 1:16 is a fine verse, but it doesn't satisfy RFG's claim to a reduced content of saving faith.<BR/><BR/>John 6:47 is another verse RFG proffers to support their reduction and I'll expose it a little later.Orangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13385339200643211924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-993893167456535134.post-82303045579462422892008-10-08T09:56:00.000-05:002008-10-08T09:56:00.000-05:00Rachel, your article points out that there is a 't...Rachel, your article points out that there is a 'textual glitch' in John 20:31 such as we can't be sure if it meant 'come to believe' or 'continue to believe'. Frankly, as I see it, Redefined Free Grace is hosed either way. If it's 'continue to believe' then their fundamental hyper-elevation of John's evangelistic purpose is undermined. If it's 'come to believe' then the hina statements of John 20:31 reveal a series of dependant clauses that are devestating to their removal of the work of the Christ from the content of saving faith -- Either way they lose.<BR/><BR/>Also, you mention John 11:2 as a pre-reference to Mary anointing the Lord in John 12. There are some however who would say there is reason to believe 11:2 is referencing an entirely different and actually earlier event than that which is to come in John 12. In the context of this discussion however that objection, even if true, misses the point; whether 11:2 looks forward or back, it clearly demonstrates that John did not write to someone in a "Deserted Island Scenario". The problem for Redefined Free Grace is WORSENED if they take the position that 11:2 isn't looking ahead to 12 because it means they have to admit 11:2 is referencing something outside of John entirely! Whichever view you take it's clear John wrote assuming some pre-existing familiarity -- they lose either way.Orangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13385339200643211924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-993893167456535134.post-12809731652689748922008-10-08T06:12:00.000-05:002008-10-08T06:12:00.000-05:00Rachel:More later, but I want to comment on this f...Rachel:<BR/><BR/>More later, but I want to comment on this from you, <I>Hodges says that those of us who oppose him are "at war" with John's Gospel</I>.<BR/><BR/>IMO, the article signals that it is Hodges (and Wilkin by extension) who has gone to "<I>war</I>" against all those in the Free Grace community who will not accept and/or openly reject his reductionist assault on the necessary content of saving faith.<BR/><BR/>This article must certainly remove any doubt in the minds of even the most sympathetic in the FG community that there must be a complete and total withdrawal from Hodges, Wilkin and GES.<BR/><BR/>Hodges has lead the GES to become a tiny cell of reductionist theological extremists who have checked out on the Scriptures.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.com