The Land of Reason

God, eternality, and other attributes/premises

2012-01-11T15:22:00.000-06:00

"We do not know how an eternal God operates in time. We scarcely know what time is; it is not at all clear what eternity is (Does God know sequence?), still less how he relates to our time."
--D.A. Carson, Reflections on Assurance
-----
Per Carson, I believe we are indeed too inclined to view God in terms of our own perception of time and creation, and fail to realize that God's eternal nature necessarily makes him independent of such created concepts as past, present, and future. If you believe as I do that time itself is a created thing then it necessarily follows that we can't tie God to the same restrictions that time imposes on us. Namely, from God's native point of view, there really is no such thing as past, present, or future -- By being the creator of time it necessarily follows that God exists (and existed) independent of time.

I submit the following premises, which I hope to elaborate on in some detail later. They are:

P1 - Omniscience -- God has perfect knowledge; Natural, Middle (Molinism), and Free.
P2 - Omnipotence -- God has the power to do anything that is consistent with his nature.
P3 - Omnibenevolence -- God will always do what is best according to his nature.
P4 - Sovereignty -- God's authority to act in accordance with his nature is not contingent upon anyone/thing other than his own said nature.
P5 - Eternality -- That God, as creator of time, is himself beyond time (meta-temporal). He is not merely traversing time with us -- he has the freedom and even the necessary ability to exist and operate around and within all aspects of time (past, present, and future) simultaneously.

Among other things, one of the conclusions of these premises if accepted as true...
C - It inescapably follows that, in actualizing this world in accordance with his own nature, that this is in fact the best of all possible worlds.

This is not to be confused with "the best of all conceivable worlds", which is a mis-guided apples-to-oranges criticism that fails to properly distinguish what's "actually possible" from what's "merely conceivable". The alternative is to suggest that it's actually possible for God to have "done better" by actualizing a different reality -- a view which I believe strikes against the very nature of God and so I reject it because accepting it would destroy the very God that I have come to believe all of existence is contingent upon.

Discussions -- Conscience, salvation, and grace

2012-01-09T09:08:00.000-06:00

Had some good discussions on Sunday regarding some aspects of Rom 2. Some that stood out to me and would be willing to discuss more are the following.

#1 To what degree can you trust your conscience? (Rom 2:15)
#2 Can one be "saved" even if they've committed no offense? (Rom 2:7,10)
#3 Do we over-emphasize grace? (Rom 2:5-11)

To #1 -- My short answer on this is... see Rom 14. The biblical example of varying conscience regarding meat and special days declares pretty clearly that our conscience, even among Christians, is not objective, consistent and reliable. Not that we should ignore our conscience for that is its own sin (Rom 14:23) but we need to submit and shape our conscience to fit truth rather than fit truth to the whims of our conscience.

To #2 -- Yes, because the judgment we ultimately face is a judgment against mankind as a whole, not just us as individuals. Thus, even if we could (for sake of discussion) live an entire lifetime free of personal sin we are nevertheless 'sinners" positionally by nature and in need of salvation.

To #3 -- In the context of "getting saved" (justification) I think it's impossible to over-emphasize grace since salvation is by no other means than grace through faith. (Eph 2:8,9) It's often confusing in-fact to discuss sanctification in the context of justification because there's a tendency to blur the distinction as do John MacArthur, Ray Comfort, and others who espouse Lordship Salvation.

However, In the context of "living saved" (sanctification) grace CAN be over-emphasized to the point of fostering an antinomian attitude which is just as wrong as legalism. (Rom 6).

Lordship and False Followers – Matthew 7:21-23

2012-01-03T09:52:00.002-06:00

In a recent article about this passage, Dr Charlie Bing starts "This passage is often cited to show that many professing Christians are not actually saved..."

No doubt you have heard this passage used this way as well. I recall in particular having heard a sermon by Ray in a well-known sermon of his called Hell's Best Kept Secret. If you've heard this sermon then you should know what a travesty it is against salvation by grace through faith as taught in the Bible. In a nutshell, Ray claims this passage to support the idea that salvation is like a parachute in that it's something we can be offered, and even accept, but it's still up to us to keep holding onto it. Ray's message, and the Lordship Salvation he and others teach, remind me of Matt 23:4 (NLT) which says, "They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden."

Contrarily, Matt 7 is a precision indictment against the very Lordship Salvation he and so many popular pastors espouse today.

Read the rest of his insightful article which addresses the common misuse of this passage.

http://gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes.asp?id=52

Free: Chapter 2 of Back to Faith on James 2:14 ff

2011-12-04T22:10:00.002-06:00

This is a link to a free chapter from a book by an author friend of mine. James, chapter 2 in particular, is widely misused and misunderstood that I think it's worth your time to take another look... does James (2) really teach what many of us have been taught? I don't think so. What do you think?

http://www.backtofaith.com/biblically-speaking/free-chapter-2-of-back-to-faith-on-james-214-ff/

Tekton Ticker - Sun Stand Still: Conclusion

2011-11-30T14:06:00.000-06:00

This is why ‘life change’ is not the gospel. Sure, life change is good. God answering big prayer is good. But it’s not the Gospel.

-- Tekton Ticker - Sun Stand Still: Conclusion

On Being a Christ Follower

2011-10-18T13:24:00.002-05:00

It's good to be a Christ-follower, but you're saved by being a Christ-believer. John 6:66 reveals the tragedy of those who "followed" Christ -- were even called disciples -- but didn't believe in Him. Don't fool yourself into thinking you're saved because you've "surrendered your life to Christ". So far as salvation goes God isn't interested in what you've done, are doing, or intend to do for Him; He's only interested in whether you believe what He has already done.

from http://www.freegracealliance.com/covenant.htm ...
* 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.

* 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.

Lordship and the Folly of Discipleship/Salvation synonymy

2011-09-22T12:52:00.002-05:00

A central issue with LS is a failure to accurately distinguish discipleship from salvation. A passage that clearly shows a negative example of the difference is John 6:66. "Disciples" abandoned Jesus precisely because they didn't believe him, yet the word is the same as is used for disciple some 260 other times. Disciples aren't necessarily faithful believers , so the concepts are clearly not as synonymous as the average LS proponent would have us believe. Allowing the Bible to define it's own terms and their use --discipleship isn't salvation, and salvation isn't discipleship -- it's folly to enjoin them as functionally synonymous.

Is this the Gospel of Salvation?

2011-06-25T22:41:00.003-05:00

Is this an accurate, concise presentation of the Gospel of Salvation?

“God loves you so much that He sent His Son Jesus to this world long ago. The Bible promises that whoever believes in Jesus will live forever in heaven with Him.”

Why I'm no longer a Calvinist #1 - Pre-faith regeneration

2010-10-19T08:48:00.006-05:00

First, a clarification: When I say "Calvinist" I mean it only as a well-known label to quickly sum-up a system of beliefs commonly known as the Doctrines of Grace (DofG). I fully realize there are those who believe the DofG who take issue with being called "Calvinist" since it implies following after a man rather than what they believe are biblical doctrines. Fair enough, so know that I am using the term here in its more general sense as a label.

So, with that out of the way...

... a few years ago, in being challenged on my Calvinist beliefs I was confronted with the reality that, to cling to Calvinism, I would have to accept as true something called Pre-faith regeneration (PfR). Basically, this means that before someone can believe unto salvation they have to first (logically if not sequentially) be regenerated with new life by God to even be able to believe in the first place. This is logically demanded by Calvinism's view of fallen man's depravity which renders the Biblical order of salvation backwards and/or incomplete in many many verses.

There are many examples but here are just a couple to get started:
John 3:16b:
Bible view -- "... whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. "
PfR view -- "... whoever has life shall not perish but believes in Him"

John 6:47:
Bible view -- "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life"
PfR view -- "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who has eternal life believes in Him."

There are many many more examples, but you get the point -- If PfR is true it means the Holy Spirit essentially inspired these and many other verses regarding belief unto everlasting life... backwards! Rather, any natural reading of the Bible paints new life as clearly the result of belief, not the other way around as PfR demands. Since PfR is unbiblical yet required by Calvinism's view of depravity it became evident that strict Calvinism was askew. Not to say Calvinism is all bad, not at all (or second son does bear his name in-the-middle after-all), but if a premise leads to a clearly faulty conclusion then one ought reexamine the premise.

For further reading, please see the following:
Lordship's (out of order) Salvation
The Danger of Teaching that Regeneration Precedes Faith

Theology Talk forum

2009-01-26T08:54:00.006-06:00

I would like to announce the creation of the Theology Talk forum.

This is an experimental forum, conceived for the purpose of establishing a "neutral zone" for discussion of our theological similarities and differences.

The problem with blogs
Blogs are great for articles but don't naturally allow for free-flowing dialog. This is because most blogs, by nature, are tightly connected to a specific author's/group's point-of-view so only a few people at best can actually create new articles/topics. This isn't intrinsically bad, but it is often at odds with the normal dynamic of human interaction.

The following factors can cause discussion on blogs to become scattered and/or constrained. Participants are forced to either...
[*]rigidly adhere to a specific topic
[*]"hijack" the comments of an article as spin-off discussion naturally ensues
[*]create an article on their own blog and try to direct the branch discussion to their own blog. This can be especially problematic when the person/group who wants to talk about a new aspect that arises is on a blog that won't allow them to post a link to their own blog for whatever reason, probably because of some known strong disagreement.
[*]carry out the side conversation over e-mail
These things are deterrents to the "natural" discussion that some participants desire.

The proposed solution: A forum
The forum isn't intended to replace our individual blogs, but a forum has a number of advantages that supplement our blogs. The main benefit of a forum is that all the related information, even spin-off discussions, are close-at-hand rather than scattered about a dozen or more different blogs.
[*]any user, not just the admin or a short list of contributors, can create topics of interest at any time.
[*]allow for more free form discussion while also remaining coherent and consistent
[*]better reflect the community rather than an individual or small group

These things make for an environment that is more favorable to natural discussion.

The rules are few, simple, and are intended to foster an environment for open discussion of theology -- similarities and differences -- without concern for being banned or censored simply because we disagree with one another, even sharply.

The rules (subject to change as needed)
[*]you can use any account name you like, but we want to be able to refer to each other by name in the forum so use your real name in your posts. This is to maintain a sense of personal accountability.
[*]no fake accounts, and only one account per person.
[*]no spam.
[*]no profanity.
[*]nothing sexually explicit.
[*]nothing illegal.

All are welcome, please come to Theology Talk forum., register an account, and start/join a discussion about whatever theology is on your mind.

Clearing the haze of "always"

2008-10-22T08:12:00.012-05:00

GES/Crossless advocates have long fussed over how we should ease up on'em because they "always" present the same information in their evangelistic presentations that we do, namely Jesus' deity, atoning sacrifice, and resurrection. Thus, we are told that our concerns are "theoretical".

Well, a fellow blogger (Dave of Free Grace Believer) pointed out the following article on GES' site which proves that crossless advocates, if they are logically consistent with their view, in fact do NOT always present those facts.

http://www.faithalone.org/news/y2004/04F2.html

This is what the author, writing in an approved GES publication, says about her gospel presentation:

When I share the gospel with children, I tell them the same thing I tell everyone with whom I share the gospel, “God loves you so much that He sent His Son Jesus to this world long ago. The Bible promises that whoever believes in Jesus will live forever in heaven with Him. And the great thing about the Bible is that it’s always true!” (emphasis added)

First, Jessica is clear that this is what she tells "everyone". Second, she summarizes that God "sent" his son. While true, it's a terrible oversimplification of what Jesus did when he was "sent". He wasn't just "sent" (eg. apostello & pempo), he was "given" (eg. didomi in John 3:16) which means "to give, to give something or someone, ... to bestow a gift". That, in the evangelistic context of John 3:16, carries a truckload of meaning which "sent" is insufficient to convey.

I applaud Jessica for making some statements that are indeed very good about presenting a clear gospel of salvation. I also applaud her for being logically consistent with her view. However, her article which was accepted by GES and not (to the best of my knowledge) contested in any way as a valid application of their view in practice, proves what we have said all along -- that if Jesus' deity and finished work on the cross are merely psychologically helpful then they may indeed be left out of the gospel presentation entirely, only injected at such time as they are believed to be specifically helpful to whoever is being presented to.

Jessica's accurate portrayal of the crossless view in practice clears the air of the obfuscating smog offered by crossless advocates that they always present the same info we do.

Beheading Hodges' Hydra - Part 3 of 3

2008-10-14T06:00:00.002-05:00

This will be the final article in this short series that has reviewed the latest article by Zane Hodges. Part 1 addressed the errors Hodges makes in his article regarding his critics. Part 2 explained the errors his article makes regarding the Gospel of John. Here in Part 3, I will discuss the errors in Hodges' article regarding the apostle Paul and "the gospel".

First, Hodges states that most people think that the term "'gospel' defines what a person must believe to have eternal life", and goes on to assert that this is NOT the case. Greg has already done an excellent job of refuting this unfounded assertion of Hodges in a series found here, so I won't take much time to revisit all his points. I just want to highlight one glaring contradiction to this assertion of Hodges regarding the term "the gospel". In order to claim that the term "gospel" does NOT define what a person must believe to have eternal life, Hodges, et al. must completely ignore 1 Cor. 1:23, where Paul states that "we preach Christ crucified". Paul indicates that this message of "Christ crucified" (and his resurrection, implicitly, since crucifixion by itself was an obvious shame problem that would never have won anyone by itself, it was the resurrection that vindicated the shame of the crucifixion) was actually a stumblingblock and foolishness to his hearers. In the Hodges framework, if the cross or resurrection is a "stumblingblock" to someone believing in Jesus for eternal life, we should put it on the "back burner"! This is antithetical to Paul, who maintained that he would ALWAYS preach "Christ crucified", despite the difficulties such a message presented to his hearers. Surely if Jesus' death and resurrection were only one of many ways a person can be convinced of the "real" saving message (that of eternal life through Jesus, according to Hodges), Paul would have abandoned such a problematic message and used a more favorable approach. Yet here Paul stubbornly says he will just keep on preaching these specific details ("Christ crucified" and the resurrection). Choosing between Zane Hodges' method of evangelism and Paul's method of evangelism is an easy choice to make.

Second, Hodges says that because Paul uses the term "gospel" in 1 Cor. 15 to refer to MORE than what must be believed for salvation (although I dispute even that, but granting at this moment for the sake of argument), then that completely refutes the idea that "gospel" does at times mean "what the lost must believe to be born again". Hodges seems to think that using the term broadly in one place means it can never mean something more specific! If I say, "I love kids", "love" there has a certain meaning. But if I say, "I love MY kids", I've used the same term ("love") but in this case it has a much more specific meaning. He ignores the fact that the same term can be used in a variety of ways, sometimes broadly and sometimes specifically. One usage of a term in a certain way does NOT automatically refute other usages of the term.

Third, the point above assumes for the sake of argument that "gospel" in 1 Cor. 15 really does mean more than what the lost must believe for salvation, but that is definitely NOT a given. Hodges weakly attempts to defend such a position with 2 reasons. First, Hodges tries to say, regarding the list of items in 1 Cor. 15:1-8, that "all these items were of 'first importance' in Paul's gospel" (emphasis in original). Unfortunately for Hodges, this presents a conundrum for him. Does Zane Hodges find Jesus' specific appearance to James (part of his enumerated list) as "first importance" in the message Hodges presents to the lost? Hodges tries to say that if we say that Paul is referencing the saving message here, then we must include everything there in the requirements for belief. Hodges obviously does NOT think these things are necessarily part of the saving message, yet he does think that all these things are of "first importance" and SHOULD be preached. So if he thinks WE need to be "consistent" in saying that if some of it is "gospel" then all of it is, then he also needs to be consistent in saying that if some of it is "of first importance" then all of it is. He should be preaching Jesus' appearance to the 500 all the time just as he says he preaches the cross and resurrection all the time. If Hodges truly believes that Paul is giving each of these items equal value and importance, then we would expect to see Hodges saying that the appearance of Jesus to Peter is something of "great importance" and that he "always preaches" it, just as he claims is true about the cross and resurrection of Jesus. But of course we don't see this from Hodges or any other CG advocate. Hodges is simply being hypocritical then, and realizes himself that each of these items are not on an equal level of importance. Clearly, this is just a desperate attempt to discount what is a very strong biblical argument against the "crossless" gospel that Hodges promotes.

The second weak attempt of Hodges to defend his position that the "gospel" in 1 Cor. 15 is more than what the lost must believe for salvation relates to Paul's purpose in writing the chapter. Hodges says that "Paul is defending the truth of the resurrection" and that "[t]he items he lists are chosen for that purpose". (emphasis in original) The problem with this is rather obvious, so much so that this point seems even weaker coming from a seminary professor. Just because Paul is defending the truth of the resurrection doesn't categorically exclude the items he lists from being part of the gospel! Verse 1 of 1 Cor. 15 makes it plain that Paul is recalling "the gospel" that he had preached to them in the beginning. There is no reason that Paul could not have included all the points of the gospel, and also added on to it other evidences (the various appearances) that would have been helpful toward defending the resurrection specifically. This is in fact exactly what we find. Considering that Jesus had to die in order to be resurrected, it would actually have been quite natural for Paul to include this in his list. Plus, again, he had already stated in verse 1 that he was recalling the gospel which he had originally preached to them to start the church in the beginning. To say that Paul's defense of the resurrection in chapter 15 necessarily means that his list could not include the gospel is "ridiculous error" and not worthy of a seminary professor.

Finally, it is the height of irony that Zane Hodges is now saying that "the gospel" does not define what the lost must believe to be saved. Such a statement from him causes one to wonder what exactly he meant then when he wrote the book The Gospel Under Siege. Does that book claim that the entire Bible is under siege, since the GES teaches that "the gospel" can refer to the good news of the entire Bible? Surely not. Perhaps Hodges has merely changed his mind on the issue, but the impetus for such a change would seem to be a particular theological view (the new "crossless" gospel). Rather than allowing his theological view to be changed and formed by Scripture, Hodges is changing Scripture according to his theological view.*

In summary, the latest article by Hodges defending his "crossless" gospel has been shown to be lacking in many areas. Hodges fails to even correctly represent his critics, let alone adequately answer them. He ignores essential cultural understandings of the time of John, and must resort to desperate (and failed) measures to try to remove the saving message from Paul's "gospel" in 1 Cor. 15. This reductionist "gospel" of Hodges is not only crossless, it is impotent and non-saving. I pray that exposing these errors will help keep others from accepting and/or promoting Hodges' new and unbiblical view.

*Hodges has changed other Scriptures to support his view as well, including the terms "the Christ" and "the Son of God". Greg Schliesmann exposed and refuted this major error in his article, "The Christ Under Siege".

Beheading Hodges' Hydra - Part 2 of 3

2008-10-08T06:00:00.002-05:00

In Part 1 of my review of the latest article by Hodges, I discussed the errors Hodges makes regarding his critics. Here in Part 2, I will discuss the errors he makes regarding the apostle John and the Gospel he wrote, and related matters. The reader should be aware that Hodges makes several assumptions in this area, and to address those assumptions takes quite a bit more space than it takes to simply make the assumption. As a result, this article is somewhat lengthy, however, I felt it appropriate in order to adequately address the significant errors I see in Hodges' unique theology. Part 3 of this series will be entirely devoted to explaining the errors Hodges makes in his article regarding the apostle Paul and "the gospel".

First, Hodges says that those of us who oppose him are "at war" with John's Gospel, that John's Gospel "stands in obvious contradictions" to our view, and that we are "uncomfortable" with the Gospel of John. This is ludicrous and complete well-poisoning. He never substantiates these assertions. There is no way any of us are "at war" with any part of the Bible. We are certainly not "uncomfortable" with John. We love John. That is ridiculous. I have in fact discussed the Gospel of John extensively in various places, and have actually argued that chapter 3 of that book supports the historic Free Grace position, rather than Hodges' new view. Certainly, none of us have any problem with any book of the Bible. For Hodges to make these outrageous claims, and then not even back them up, is itself outrageous.

Second, Hodges says that John never "preach[es] the conditions required for eternal life" by traditionalists. As I've stated many times in the past, John never preaches the conditions that Hodges requires either! Even Tim Nichols has acknowledged that Scripture simply does not give us a specific list of what must be believed for salvation. Indeed, we would not expect it to. John was part of what anthropologists call a "high-context" society. I have discussed this principle on this blog in the past, and it is vital to understand, especially in this debate where Hodges, et al. keep insisting that we find a neatly enumerated list of what God requires for salvation. As I indicated, Hodges has the exact same problem for his view. I have challenged several CG folks to show me even one verse or passage that specifically says what exactly a person needs to believe to be born again, and they have yet to do so. The reason they cannot and never will is because the NT is written in and to the high-context society of the Ancient Near East. The following is from a comment I made here:

Anthropologist Edward Hall popularized the terms "high context" and "low context" cultures/societies. Wikipedia isn't exactly the most scholarly/authoritative source, but their definition of "high-context" is borne out by others and is decent:

"High context culture (and the contrasting ‘low context culture’) are terms presented by the anthropologist Edward T. Hall in his book Beyond Culture. It refers to a culture’s tendency to cater towards in-groups, an in-group being a group that has similar experiences and expectations, from which inferences are drawn. In a high context culture, many things are left unsaid, letting the culture explain.

High context cultures are more common in the eastern cultures than in western, and in countries with low racial diversity. Cultures where the group is valued over the individual promote the in-groups and group reliance that favor high context cultures. Co-cultures are also conducive to high context situations, where the small group relies on their common background to explain the situation, rather than words. A low context culture explains things further, because those in a low context culture have a wide variety of background.

High context cultures have a strong sense of tradition and history, and change little over time. Many native societies (such as the Māori of New Zealand and the Native Americans.) are high context cultures. The static culture keeps the high context throughout different generations. Low context cultures change drastically from one generation to the next, like the United States."

It is certainly true, of course, that certain small groups within low-context cultures can and do have higher-context "subcultures" within the greater culture. Examples could include your family, a church/religious group, a work group, etc. But such subcultures are merely highER context than the overall culture, and do not negate the fact that the overall culture is indeed "low context".

A couple more helpful quotes...

From here, quoting a book by Malina and Rohrbaugh entitled Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels:

"The New Testament was written in what anthropologists call a 'high-context' society. People who communicate with each other in high-context societies presume a broadly shared, well-understood knowledge of the context of anything referred to in conversation or in writing. For example, everyone in ancient Mediterranean villages would have had a clear and concrete knowledge of what sowing entailed,largely because the skills involved were shared by most (male) members of that society. no writer would need to explain. Thus writers in such societies usually produce sketchy and impressionistic writings, leaving much to the reader's or hearer's imagination. They also encode much information in widely known symbolic or stereotypical statements. In this way, they require the reader to fill in large gaps in the unwritten portion of the writing. All readers are expected to know the context and therefore to understand the references in question."

And from here, this is Jonathan Sarfati (popular creationist), from his book Refuting Compromise, in which he utilized Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social-Science on the Gospel of John:

"That is, its members ‘presume a broadly shared, well-understood, or “high” knowledge of the context of anything referred to in conversation or in writing’. The authors wrote to intended readers with a certain background and expected them to be able to ‘fill in the gap’. There was no need to explain things in depth if they all had a shared, background knowledge. Conversely, we in the modern West are a ‘low-context’ society, and expect the context to be spelt out to us: ‘The obvious problem this creates for reading the biblical writings today is that low-context readers in the United States frequently mistake the biblical writings for low-context documents. They erroneously assume that the author has provided all of the contextual information needed to understand it."

So Hodges' complaint in his article that John never gave us the conditions that the historic FG position holds as necessary, is nullified, as a proper understanding of the culture of John shows that we would never expect such a thing.

Third, and closely related to the second error above, Hodges holds that John's Gospel was intended as a stand-alone message to bring unbelievers to salvation. He doesn't say that explicitly in this article, but he does imply it, and he has certainly stated so elsewhere, as have all other CG people I have read. Hodges does say that "John's Gospel was written long after [the requirements of the historic FG position] should have been standard fare", and that since such requirements are not listed out specifically in John's Gospel, then "[t]he conclusion is irresistible that such 'provisos' never existed. John the apostle obviously believed that the message Jesus gave to the lost was sufficient for the present age in which we live." The problems with this are at least three-fold. First, the point above regarding the "high-context society" in which John lived and wrote mitigates against such a list of requirements. Second, it is almost universally recognized that John's Gospel is the last of the 4 canonical Gospels, indeed it was one of the last books to be written in the entire Bible. It was most definitely written after Paul's letters. CG people like to try to use this fact in their favor, as Hodges did in the article, by claiming that if John didn't say it explicitly, then it must not be necessary. However, given the high-context John wrote in, if we recognize that Paul's letters, as well as the other 3 canonical Gospels, had been circulating for several years prior to John writing his Gospel, then we come to the obvious understanding that John did not NEED to spell out the details - they were already there and known by his readers. So when John quotes Jesus as saying, "Believe in me", he doesn't NEED to explain every last detail because that had already been done by Paul and others, and he would have assumed (correctly) that his readers already knew that. John could write something like "believe in [Jesus]" that seems vague to us, but was pregnant with meaning to his readers, and they all knew exactly what he meant. However, we are 20 centuries and a lot of culture removed from John's writings, so we have to do more study than his readers would have done to know what he meant.

So, rather than supporting the CG view, the fact that John's Gospel was written late actually refutes their view. Again, since John never actually tells us what he means specifically when he says "believe in" Jesus, the fact that his Gospel was written AFTER most of the NT indicates that he would have expected his audience to already know what that meant - which would have included Paul's constant refrain of Jesus' death and rez. And if Paul had already made the content of the gospel so abundantly clear, why would John spend any time reiterating the same points again? In addition, John was clearly trying to present unique points about Jesus' life and teaching (more on that below), and didn't have time or space (paper wasn't abundant like today) to just write about everything someone somewhere might consider important. Especially, again, if it had already been made clear by Paul and the other Gospels. Seeing this from the perspective of a high-context society that was already familiar with what John was talking about, we simply wouldn't expect John to enumerate neatly for us the exact requirements for salvation.

The third problem we see with Hodges' view that John's Gospel was intended as a stand-alone message to the lost is that I believe that John's primary purpose was NOT as a stand-alone evangelistic tool, but rather to present Jesus to second-generation, non-eye-witness believers, in order to encourage them in their faith. Naturally such a presentation would also be useful for evangelizing the lost, so that is a secondary purpose.

One way we can see this primary purpose is from the fact that John's gospel is so different from the synoptics. This article states, "The Gospel of John differs significantly from the synoptics in content. It is so different that one may justifiably suspect that John wrote to supplement the synoptic portrayal of Jesus, including material omitted by them, in order to round out the picture of Jesus presented." The point is that John is writing to readers who are already familiar with the story of Jesus from the synoptic Gospels. Thus we cannot make any kind of "argument from silence" from John's gospel because he would have been assuming his readers to know certain main points very well.

We can see this from other aspects as well, such as in John 11 when John relates the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead. John tells us that Lazarus was the brother of Mary, and in 11:2 John identifies which Mary by saying, "It was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick." However, John does not tell us the story of Mary wiping Jesus' feet with her hair until AFTER this comment, in John 12. Thus it is clear that John assumed his readers to be familiar with at least this story, most likely from the synoptics, and thus very likely they would have been familiar with other main aspects of the life and story of Jesus.

W. Hall Harris said, "It is a bit surprising that John here identifies Mary as 'the one who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair,' since this event is not mentioned until later in 12:3. Many see this 'proleptic' reference as indication that John expected his readers to be familiar with the story already, and go on to assume that in general the Evangelist in writing the Fourth Gospel assumed his readers were familiar with the other three. Whether the Evangelist assumed actual familiarity with the synoptic gospels or not, it is probable that he did assume some familiarity with Mary’s anointing activity."

There are other reasons to think that John assumed that his readers were familiar with the general story of Jesus in the synoptics - the later date of John compared to the synoptics, as well as the view (held by many early church fathers as well as modern scholars) that John wrote his gospel to supplement the synoptics, possibly even at the urging of his own followers.

Additionally, the word translated "believe" in John's purpose statement in John 20 can either mean to come to believe OR to continue believing. Daniel B. Wallace says, "The twofold i{na-clause neatly delineates the purpose: that the audience embrace Christ and that they receive life because of this. One question remains, however: the main verb, “believe” has a textual glitch. It is either pisteuvshte (aorist) or pisteuvhte (present). If the former, it might be construed (though by no means necessarily) to mean “come to saving faith.” If present, the idea probably would be “continue to believe.” At issue is whether the audience is principally believers or non-believers, whether this gospel is principally evangelistic or confirmatory. ... [My own view is that] the purpose of the book is to confirm or strengthen Gentile believers in their faith."

So Hodges is shown to be in error when he claims that John's Gospel was written primarily to tell everyone today how exactly it is that the lost can be saved. His attempt to use the timing of the writing of John's Gospel has been turned on its head and actually stands in opposition to Hodges' view.

Finally, Hodges makes a peculiar claim about the "changes" in what the lost must believe to be saved. He apparently thinks that the saving message has NOT changed since the cross. This causes one to wonder what exactly Hodges believes about changes and the saving message then. He currently thinks that people must believe that a person named Jesus can give them eternal life. But what about OT saints then? When exactly does he think the apostles were saved? Most of the apostles were good Jews - were they on their way to hell until they believed Jesus could give them eternal life? Hodges either believes that even OT saints believed "in Jesus" specifically (contrary to dispensational theology, and I would say contrary to Scripture), or he believes that the saving message HAS changed at some point, specifically when Jesus arrived on the scene. If the latter, then his attempt to use "changes" to the saving message for shock value is hypocritical. But even so, these "changes" that Hodges sounds the alarm about are simply not as radical as he presents them to be. OT saints were not required to believe in the actual events of the death and resurrection because they were not yet actual events. Once those events were actualized, they naturally became part of the gospel, just as Jesus being the one sent from God naturally became part of the gospel once he was actually sent. This is not some sort of radical change invented after the cross. It's simply a normal development in the progression of revelation.

In summary, Hodges errs regarding John's Gospel in that he plays up the supposed tension between the Gospel of John and the historic FG position, yet he provides no basis whatsoever for such claims. He also fails to recognize the high-context society in which John lived and wrote, and how that affects the specifics that John wrote as part of his Gospel. Additionally, Hodges' claim that whatever we needed to know about salvation was included explicitly in John is shown to be completely unfounded. The kinds of things we find in the Gospel of John, as well as the fact that John was written AFTER all of Paul's letters as well as the other 3 canonical Gospels, indicate that John was not intended as a stand-alone evangelistic tool to be ripped out of its context, but rather it was written to people who were already familiar with the basics of Jesus' story as well as the "fleshed-out" theology of Paul's letters. His attempt to create some sort of problem with the idea that there have been changes to the content of the gospel is clearly not any kind of problem whatsoever. Hodges' misuse of the Gospel of John, combined with his misuse of the apostle Paul (which I will discuss in Part 3 of this series, coming on Monday), continues to have grave ramifications.

Beheading Hodges' Hydra - Part 1 of 3

2008-10-06T06:00:00.004-05:00

Here we go again. Zane Hodges has written another article defending his "crossless" gospel. One person said several days ago that Hodges has been quietly studying the Word and not engaging and interacting at blogs. It may be true that Hodges is not posting at blogs, but it seems obvious that he is either reading or is being informed of the goings-on. This article seems to be an attempt at a rebuttal of sorts to his detractors, although it is too short to contain much in the way of real discussion. Instead, the article ends up "preaching to the choir" and falling far short of any kind of well-reasoned defense of Hodges' position... actually it only exposes just how weak his position really is.

There is much I could bring up about this article, but I will try to summarize. I see three primary errors in Hodges' latest article. First, he errs regarding his critics. Errors in this area abound throughout the article, which is why I say that this article seems to be rather polemic. Hodges starts out right from the beginning by attempting to attach a label to the view of those who oppose him - "theological legalism". This quite clearly seems to be an attempt to "get back" at the use of the label "crossless gospel" for his view. It really just comes off as rather juvenile, sort of, "oh yeah, well, I can call you a name too, so there!" Playing this word game is silly and unnecessary.

Hodges then resorts to trying to cast HIS view as traditional Free Grace theology, and claims that requiring the lost to accept Jesus' death and resurrection is "recent" and "co-opt[s] Free Grace theology"! This is beyond ironic. Zane Hodges is the first Bible teacher I've EVER heard teach that a person could be saved without admitting their sins and believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus. If anything is "recent" here, it's Hodges' fringe view. Even some Crossless Gospel advocates often call those of us who oppose Hodges on this point "traditionalists" or "traditional free grace". A view cannot be simultaneously "recent" AND traditional! Hodges is simply going for shock value and well-poisoning to get the reader on his side. This is actually a repeated tactic throughout his article. Hodges tries to make it sound as if his view is the normal, older, common view, and that we have suddenly showed up trying to change things. In fact, the opposite is actually the case. It is ridiculous and utter nonsense to claim that Free Grace theology has always held that the lost only need to believe that Jesus can give them eternal life, and that WE'RE the ones coming along and changing things! The opposite is clearly the case, as any reader of Charles Ryrie can testify. Tom Stegall did a great job setting forth the "traditional" Free Grace view quite some time ago in Part 1 of his series, The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel. Even Dr. Earl Radmacher, who was at the center of a recent Crossless Gospel controversy, is quoted from his book Salvation, "How readily some fall into the trap of adding requirements to the Gospel beyond simply believing that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead." Apparently even Dr. Radmacher did not think that requiring the lost to believe that Jesus died and rose again could be considered "legalism". Hodges is only deceiving himself if he thinks that his view is "traditional" Free Grace, and that it is a new thing to require the lost to believe in and accept Jesus' death and resurrection.

Further, Hodges sets up a strawman by trying to portray those of us with the "traditional" view as if we require some kind of complicated test before a lost person can be saved. He says that if "the legalist" doesn't tell people what they must believe, "no one will ever figure it out!" As if we have some long, complex crossword puzzle of assorted items that the lost must guess at to figure out how to be saved. I'm sorry, but acknowledging that we're sinners and believing in Jesus' deity, death, and resurrection are hardly hidden concepts in Scripture. Reading the Gospels, you can't miss those things. They're quite obvious. Many, many people have "figure[d] it out" just fine. He seems to be trying to convince readers that accepting Jesus' death and resurrection as payment for our sins is somehow difficult to decipher from the Scriptures. Apparently Hodges is stumping for the popular, yet arbitrary and non-biblical, "the simplest gospel wins" argument. No one has explained yet why it is that the 'traditional' gospel is rejected solely for not being "simple" enough (and of course, "simple" is quite relative and subjective, as I've pointed out in the past... what's "simple" to one may or may not be "simple" to another).

Later in the article, Hodges includes a list of things Jesus never specifically asked anyone to believe. He makes it seem like traditionalists include all (or many of) these things as requirements for the lost to believe. Of course, this simply serves as shock value and another strawman, to try to get the reader to agree that the lost don't need to assent to everything on that list for salvation, when no one is suggesting that. Again, Hodges seems to think that requiring the lost to believe in Jesus' death and resurrection is tantamount to requiring them to pass a seminary exam. If he can't see the difference, then there's not much else that can be said.

At the conclusion of the article, Hodges claims that traditionalists "communicate to the unsaved person that he can only be saved if his doctrine is correct ... [and] make[s] him wonder, 'Did I believe enough doctrine to be truly saved?'" The issue of having our doctrine correct for salvation unnecessarily broadens the point. As if traditionalists require every minute doctrinal point to be correct. It is not a matter of doctrine per se, it is a matter of correctly identifying the person and work of the Savior who paid for our sins. Wondering "did I believe enough?" isn't unique to traditionalists and can happen to an RFGer too, i.e. "did I really believe I could never lose my salvation?" We all (should) mature and grow in our faith and understanding, such that we look back on our times of immature understanding and wonder if it was enough. Hodges' attempt to castigate his critics for something that applies to everyone, and to cast his view as "traditional", clearly fails.

Debunking Skeptianity

2008-09-14T15:12:00.004-05:00

We have received some contact asking what we've been up to and I thought we'd fill ya in.

It all started when Rachel -- she's always getting us into trouble ;-) -- got involved at an anti-Christian blog known as Debunking Christianity (DC). Many of their arguments are based on outrage, over generalization, and blatant ignorance/misrepresentation of what they critique.

Sadly, many well intentioned Christians respond with arguments that are also weak and unwittingly give an undue appearance of validity to many of the skeptic's arguments. We (especially Rachel) have been engaged in debates with skeptics for years and have been in the line of fire by those who are best described as "skeptic-fundies" (SFs) -- those who make absurd statements such as "If God was standing right in front me I still wouldn't believe -- I'd assume I was hallucinating" or "Even if all the evidence pointed to a divine creator we would reject that conclusion because it's not naturalistic." Exposing this kind of rabid fundamentalism -- the kind that essentially states it would reject a conclusion that doesn't align with it's preconceptions -- is where we are currently investing our resources. While we hope otherwise, we are sadly convinced that anyone who has hardened their minds against even the evidence of a direct manifestation of God have committed intellectual suicide. Ironic that they do so in the name of holding the intellect in such high regard.

Some who engage in such bravado do so to elevate their status among fellow skeptics and/or as a psychological step in convincing themselves they really believe it. There are many others who lurk (or rarely post) who have not yet sacrificed their intellect. Some of these are sincere Christians looking for answers to their honest questions and are getting unsatisfactory answers from their peers and spiritual leadership. Others are genuinely undecided and are looking in to determine which side is most convincing. It is this group of groups, which is statistically much larger than the SF group that makes most of the noise, that we believe we can sway. It is this group of groups that retains some degree of intellectual honesty that we think possible to win by demonstrating that the SF claims are almost entirely repackaged, age-old, weak objections which have equally age-old and solid responses.

We don't seek confrontation, yet for the sake of winning those who are on the brink of converting to SF ideology we are increasingly willing to hold the line and push back.

Our current effort has been to prepare curriculum for a 12-week series on apologetics at our church. This series goes beyond sound-bite apologetics; we point out weak arguments frequently used by Christians as well as the weak claims the skeptics use. The goal is to equip Christians to recognize that SFs prey on ignorance and rely heavily on poor logic, poor scholarship, and bald assertion to support their claims.

Pray for us in this endeavor; it's past time for this generation of Christians to take ownership of its own beliefs rather than sticking its head in the sand and hoping the SFs will go away.

Really Consistent?

2008-05-20T15:05:00.006-05:00

(This article was originally posted on 5/19/2008 and was completely revised throughout the day of 5/20/2008.)

Consistent:: agreeing or accordant; compatible; not self-contradictory: His views and actions are consistent. (bold added)

There is a relatively new movement in Free Grace that distinguishes itself from historical Free Grace. It's become commonly known as; the Crossless gospel, the Promise-only gospel, or Redefined Free Grace. Understandably, not liking such labels, some in this movement have suggested that one of their preferred labels is "Consistent Free Grace" (CFG). The goal of this article is to set forth just one of several reasons why I believe "consistent" does not belong in a label for this movement at all by simple demonstration of a glaring inconsistency in the CFG view vs CFG practice.

So, I was thinking about their special claim to consistency yesterday and remembered an exchange I had with Bob Wilkin about a year ago in which I had asked Bob,"What is the simplest gospel?" He replied:

My view is that the Lord Jesus told us what the saving message is and we can't err by proclaiming the message He proclaimed.

Okay, so what was Jesus' message? Is CFG in fact "consistent" with it?

Jesus said in John 3:16:

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.

note: CFG is fond of pointing out that J3:16 (Jesus' message) does not explicitly mention sin, or Jesus' death, burial, or resurrection and so the lost man cannot be required to believe those things)

John 4 and the woman at the well is another favorite CFG passage that supposedly demonstrates their minimal content of saving faith.

Bob Wilkin's summary of this passage as it regards the saving message is that "[Jesus] didn’t tell her anything about His person or work other than that He gives living water which once received springs up in a person into everlasting life."

Bob Wilkin goes on to explain that this was not unique to Jesus' message to the woman at the well, that "[Jesus] rarely even alluded to the cross or the resurrection in His evangelism"

Not surprisingly John 6:47, a (in)famous CFG "mini-gospel", does not mention anything about Jesus' person or work either save, of course, the promise of Everlasting Life for those who believe.
When Bob Wilkin caught our church unaware, his message was "Evangelism: Do what Jesus Did".

In short, CFG has a view that:

We can't err by proclaiming the message Jesus proclaimed.
Do What Jesus Did

And...

Jesus didn’t tell the woman at the well anything about His person or work.
Jesus rarely even alluded to the cross or the resurrection in His evangelism.

Can you see where I'm going with this?

CFG advocates and defenders are adamant that other evangelicals should cut'em some slack -- making statements like "We preach the same message you do: Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection for the atonement of sin". In light of the statements from CFG's own top advocate however, one begins to wonder indeed why they would say such a thing and routinely include those details since that clearly exceeds the message they claim Jesus' himself usually presented. Sure, CFG can provide some (psycho)logical reasons for including add'l info, at least sometimes, but (psycho)logical arguments fall flat in light of their own ultimate litmus test -- namely that "we can't err by proclaiming the message [Jesus] proclaimed."

CFG folks, it's simple -- if it's your view that we should "do what Jesus did", and "[Jesus] rarely even alluded to the cross or the resurrection in His evangelism" (and that IS your view) how on earth do you justify that it's somehow consistent to claim it's "important/critical/essential" for anyone else to routinely do so?

Refer back to the bolded portion of the definition at the beginning of this article and consider this:

CFG View

We can't go wrong by proclaiming the message Jesus proclaimed.
Jesus' message rarely alluded to add'l info such as his deity, death, or resurrection.

CFG Action

Insist that it's important to routinely present info that Jesus himself only rarely presented.

That simply is not "consistent"
Stephen

Paul and the Holy Spirit at odds with Redefined Free Grace

2008-04-14T13:53:00.009-05:00

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.

A Case for the Cross - Part 2

2008-02-18T15:26:00.004-06:00

Romans 3-4

I'm going to take a slight bit of liberty here and add to my original outline. :-) In this article, I will discuss Romans chapters 3 and 4, and explain how these chapters show us that saving faith includes belief in Jesus' substitutionary death (and acknowledgement of our sin by strong implication), as well as faith in Jesus apart from any works.

First, let's again get a brief overview of Paul's argument up to now. Paul is in the process of showing that all the world is guilty before God. In chapter 1 he shows that the Gentiles/heathens are guilty of sin. In chapter 2 he shows that the Jews are also guilty of sin. In chapter 3 he is concluding and reiterating that all the world stands guilty of sin before God and deserving of justice and punishment.

These 2 chapters are pretty clear regarding the need for faith in Jesus alone and apart from works. I will just list them here and provide any comment as needed, since this is not generally a point of contention in this "crossless" debate (although it is vital, thus I have included it in my series, and certainly if anyone has any challenges on this point, bring them up in the comments thread).

3:20 - "...because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." Clearly works do not enable anyone to be justified.

3:21-22 - "But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe..." The righteousness of God (i.e. justification) comes apart from the Law and is through faith in Jesus.

3:24 - "...being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus..." - Justification is a gift, thus not something that could be earned or gained through works.

3:28 - "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." - Self-evident.

4:2-5 - "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.' Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness..." - Lots of good stuff in this section. Paul uses the beloved and revered OT story of Abraham to show that he was justified NOT by works, but only by his faith in God. Paul also strongly rejects that works can possibly contribute to our salvation. He states that if you're counting on your works, then you'll get whatever they're worth (i.e. not much). But if you don't rely on your works, but instead simply believe in Jesus, your faith in Jesus results in His righteousness being transferred to your account, allowing God to remain just while justifying sinners.

There is more here, but I think that is sufficient to prove that salvation/justification is by faith alone in Jesus and completely apart from works.

Do we see any other content of saving faith here in these chapters? I believe so. Romans 3:25 says of Jesus, "God presented Him as a propitiation through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed..." (HCSB) I have previously discussed this verse on my group blog. I have edited it and reproduced it here. This verse seems pretty clear that we are to have faith "in His blood". Here is an article by Zane Hodges in which he addresses this verse from the "crossless" perspective. In the article, Hodges notes that the word for "propitiation" here is "hilasterion", which refers to the mercy seat. However, I don't see how this makes a difference. My point is that Romans 3:25 clearly states that Jesus’ propitiation of our sin is applied through faith in the propitiation (the blood of Jesus). It seems to me that Hodges is claiming that “propitiation” is actually two steps, the first step being the actual payment of our sins (Jesus’ death), and the second step being where Jesus “introduces” us to God or mediates between us and God. He then seems to be claiming that the “propitiation” in Romans 3:25 ONLY refers to the “second step”, due to the use of the word for mercy seat (hilasterion), and that God said he would “meet” with his people at the mercy seat.

I first want to point out a quote by Hodges from that article:
“Without at all criticizing the choice of word order by NKJV and NASV, it nevertheless remains true that the Greek word order is significant. Paul is basically connecting the words 'through faith' with the word for mercy seat (hilasterion). That is to say, Jesus Christ becomes the New Covenant equivalent of the mercy seat through faith.”
This is important because Hodges here is acknowledging that Romans 3:25 clearly states that Jesus becomes our propitiation (or “mercy seat”) through faith. Which leads to the question, faith in what? The verse tells us plainly, faith in His blood. Hodges goes on to say that he thinks this refers to a specific aspect of propitiation (which I explain further below), but I will also refute that idea. The point to remember here is that even Hodges concedes that Romans 3:25 is clear in that whatever the verse means by “propitiation”, Jesus only becomes such propitiation by faith (and I would further say it is faith “in His blood”).

First, I don’t think such a bifurcation of propitiation is warranted. The separation seems artificial, and solely to bolster Hodges’ already-held view. I don’t think such a distinction would ever be set forth if the theology that requires it wasn’t already in place.

Second, I don’t see the focus of the mercy seat as the place where anyone is “introduced” to God. When Paul’s readers saw the word and thought of “mercy seat”, I don’t think they separated in their minds the payment (or passing over, as was the case in the OT) of their sins from the ability to meet with God. The mercy seat contained all of those aspects in one. The blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the mercy seat, at once covering their sins AND allowing God to meet with them. I just do not see how the use of the word for “mercy seat” somehow means ONLY God meeting with the believer and not ALSO the payment of sins.

Third, and I think this point is more pertinent, Hodges quotes Exodus 25 (although the article says “Exodus 5 ″), when God is giving instructions to Moses on how to build the tabernacle, what all should be in it, and how it all should be constructed. God tells Moses specifically, “There I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel.” This seems to indicate a special, non-routine occurrence of God meeting with Moses specifically, in order to give him commandments for the nation of Israel. In contrast, when God prescribes the Law of Atonement, or sin offering, that the Israelites were to do each year (in Lev. 16 ), God says nothing at all about meeting the priest at the mercy seat. All that is said is the instructions on how to sprinkle the blood on the seat, the scapegoat, the cleaning up of the priest doing the killing, and what to do with the animal after the offering was made. There is NO indication that God “met with” the priest each and every year that he sprinkled the blood on the mercy seat. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, I think we see that the “meeting” God planned in Exodus 25 was a unique meeting with Moses specifically, in order to give him information that he was to pass on to Israel. Thus my second point above is further solidified, in that the readers of Romans, when they saw the word hilasterion (”mercy seat”), would have thought of the atonement in general. There is no evidence that the mercy seat was considered or even intended as some sort of annual meeting place between God and man. So it’s not just that Paul’s readers wouldn’t have separated the “meeting with God” aspect from the “atonement for sins” aspect, it’s that they never would have thought of a “meeting with God” aspect in the first place, because that’s simply not what happened at the mercy seat.

Now, it is true that a few translations render this verse, "in His blood, through faith", or "by His blood, through faith". But the vast majority of translations have it "through faith in his blood". I don't know Greek, but thankfully people who do have put together some wonderful tools so that I can still see what the original Greek was for this verse. Literally this reads, "through faith in this His blood". The strong consensus is that the verse does say "through faith in His blood".

One final thought on these chapters. As I stated earlier, in Romans 3 Paul is concluding his argument that the entire world stands guilty of sin before a just and holy God. Since Paul has just got done explaining in detail all about our sin problem and the fact that it separates us from God, it seems patently obvious that for someone to appropriate Christ's sacrifice and obtain forgiveness of sins, that that person must be aware of and acknowledge (i.e. agree with God about) their sins. If we are to have "faith in His blood", what would we be having such faith for? Why would Jesus need to die, and why do we need His blood to fix anything? It must be that we need forgiveness for our sins. Some will say that this is merely a psychological step rather than a salvific step. But I contend that it is actually a psychological requirement (and Scriptural too), rather than simply a "most likely" or "usually" or "pretty much all the time" step that most people will go through. When we consider the OT sacrifices were all done because of sin, and that Paul is writing these words about faith in the context of proving that all are guilty of sin (and remembering the high-context ANE society he is writing in), I think it becomes quite clear that a person must acknowledge their sin in order to put their faith for forgiveness of sins in the blood of Jesus. How could someone receive forgiveness of their sins if they don't even acknowledge their sins, and/or they don't believe in and accept the payment that Jesus made in order to forgive their sins? This is not merely psychological, it is salvific. You cannot receive forgiveness of your sins if you don't ask for it and accept the payment for your sins.

Romans chapters 3 and 4 teach very plainly that saving faith must be placed in Jesus Christ alone, apart from any works. But what does it mean to place your faith in Jesus? What must we believe in Him for? Chapter 3 makes it evident that we need to acknowledge our sin, and place our faith in Jesus and His substitutionary sacrifice - the blood that He shed to provide for our forgiveness.

A Case for the Cross - Part 1

2008-02-13T01:30:00.001-06:00

John 3

To start, let's get a quick overview of this chapter. In the previous chapter, 2 major events occurred. Jesus began his ministry by changing the water to wine at the wedding in Cana (sidenote here for the skeptical sort: this was NOT Jesus' own wedding because John 2:2 tells us that Jesus was invited to the wedding! kind of strange to invite yourself to your own wedding). Then we have the first Passover in John, where Jesus cleansed the temple of the money-changers, and also prophesied his own resurrection. We also see that "many" people believed in Jesus during this time.

This brings us to John chapter 3. The scene has Nicodemus approaching Jesus at nighttime, no doubt partially in fear of the other Pharisees seeing him with Jesus. Nick tells Jesus that he thinks Jesus has "come from God". Jesus tells him that he (and everyone) must be "born again". Nick doesn't understand and questions Jesus on that. Jesus then proceeds to give a lengthy explanation in vs. 5-21 of what is involved in being born again. The rest of chapter 3 (vs. 23-36) gives us John the Baptizer's last recorded testimony about Jesus during John's ministry. It is considered a transition from John's ministry to Jesus' ministry.

I want to focus here on Jesus' monologue in vs. 5-21, then look a little at vs. 23-36. What do we learn about saving faith in vs. 5-21? I see in these verses at least 3 of the requirements I listed in my introductory post: 1) acknowledgement of sin; 2) belief in Jesus' death on the cross; and 3) belief that Jesus is God.

John 3:16 is a popular verse in our culture, probably the most well-known verse of all time. But let's look at the near context of the words in John 3:16. In verses 14-15, Jesus says, "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." Jesus is referencing an OT story found in Numbers 21:1-9. The Israelites had begun to complain against God and Moses, so God sent "fiery serpents" which bit the people and many of them died. Verse 7 says, "So the people came to Moses and said, 'We have sinned, because we have spoken against the LORD and you; intercede with the LORD, that He may remove the serpents from us.' " So Moses went to the Lord, and in verse 8 God told Moses what to do: "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live." Moses obeyed, and from then on, anyone who was bit could simply look at the serpent, and his life was spared.

Numbers 21:7 is especially significant. The people clearly acknowledged their sin before the Lord, THEN God made a way for them to just look on the serpent and live. So when Jesus compares his death on the cross to the serpent in the wilderness with Moses, Nicodemus (and the original readers) would immediately have thought of the entire story. The story itself speaks of sin and judgment, as well as God delivering the people. It is almost a "mini" gospel story: it involves recognition of sin, reliance on God for deliverance, God providing the deliverance, and a response required on the part of the individual in order to receive God's deliverance.

Also, Jesus compares himself to the serpent which was "lifted up". I'm not sure if the "standard" from the Numbers story was definitely a cross, but it seems to be some kind of pole lifted up off the ground. This would most certainly bring forth the picture of crucifixion to the original readers. Jesus paints a word picture of himself "lifted up" off the earth (on something, most likely a cross in that culture) due to the sin of the people, and the sinful people avoiding death and being given life by "looking" to him ("believing" in him).

Then in the very next verse (16), it says that God "gave" His Son so that people could avoid death and be given life. The context of Jesus referencing the Numbers story of the serpent on a pole gives import to this meaning of "gave". Verse 16 says that God "gave" His Son in order that people could live eternally. What else could this be referring to except Jesus' substitutionary atonement? For as wonderful as the incarnation is, it alone does not have the ability to grant anyone eternal life. If Jesus had merely come to earth and lived a perfect life, it wouldn't have changed a thing spiritually for any of us. There is no other sense of God's "giving" of His Son that provides eternal life for sinful people who deserve death. John 3:16 is telling us that God "gave" His Son as a sacrifice for our sins when he died on the cross.

Let us now look at John 3:16 in its entirety (everyone together now): "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." Now remember, these words are in the context of the story from Numbers, which rings of sin, judgment, and deliverance. Jesus says that whoever believes in Him "shall not perish". In the Numbers story, why were the people perishing? Because of the bites of the serpents, which were sent as a result of their sin. So they perished as a result of their sin. But when they looked upon the serpent, the results of their sin (death) were erased, and they were given life instead.

The analogy Jesus is drawing here is manifestly evident. The people in Numbers acknowledged their sin, then believed in God's provision for deliverance from the resulting judgment of their sin. But of course we know that those people were only given "temporary" life, whereas belief in Jesus results in eternal life. So we can see from the full context of John 3:16 that "belief in Jesus" contemplates an acknowledgement of personal sin and the need for God to provide a way of deliverance from the results of our sin, as well as the realization that God has provided a way of deliverance, that is, Jesus' death on the cross.

But let's back up in verse 16 for a minute. Who is it that God "gave", the one in whom we are to "believe"? It is God's "only begotten Son". In fact, John 3:16 doesn't even mention the name "Jesus". It simply tells us that we are to believe in God's "only begotten Son", or another way to say it, the "Son of God". Clearly this is saying that we are to believe in Jesus as God, or we could say, part of the required content of saving faith ("belief") is the fact that Jesus is God ("Son of God"). How could someone believe "in" the Son of God if that person did not believe that anyone actually is the "Son of God"? If someone believes in a Jesus whom they deny is the Son of God, then obviously they are not believing in the "Son of God".

Now, I know some will claim that the term "Son of God" or "only begotten Son" does not actually refer to deity. I will address and refute that claim later in my outline (see my introductory article for the outline). But let's assume that claim is correct. Let's assume that "only begotten Son" (aka "Son of God") in John 3:16 is NOT a title for deity. What does this title mean then? What would this verse be saying if "only begotten Son" does not mean deity? A mere human? An angel? Some other being? Such an interpretation would have the lost believe in someone who is not God to give them eternal life! John 3:16 requires people to believe in God's "only begotten Son" in order to avoid perishing (the result of their sin) and to receive eternal life. If this term does not refer to deity, then John 3:16 requires everyone to believe in someone less than God (a mere human even! ) to give them eternal life! This is antithetical even to their own message, and is both impossible and unbiblical. But in actuality, this term does in fact refer to deity, as I will show later on in the series.

The rest of John 3 gives us more cause for including belief in Jesus' eternal deity in the required content of saving faith. John 3:18 says, "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." Again, no mention of believing in "Jesus", yet clearly the lost are required to believe in the "Son of God" (referring to deity).

In vs. 27-36, John the Baptizer speaks to his disciples regarding more people beginning to follow Jesus than John. John refers to Jesus' deity in several ways ("the Christ", Jesus "comes from heaven", Jesus is "the Son" and God has "given all things into his hand"). Finally, in v. 38, John declares, "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." Once again, we have no mention of the name Jesus in a salvific text. What we do see is a requirement to believe in "the Son [of God]". If someone does not believe Jesus is the "Son of God", then even if they claim to believe in Jesus, as far as they are concerned they are not believing in the Son of God.

In summary, John 3 shows us at least 3 items in the required content of saving faith: acknowledgement of personal sin, belief in Jesus' death on the cross to pay for our sin, and belief that Jesus is God. The sin aspect is evident from Jesus' reference in vs. 14-15 to the story in Numbers. Belief in Jesus' substitutionary atonement on the cross is also evident from the story in Numbers, as well as the statement in v. 16 that God "gave" His Son for the purpose of making provision for people to avoid death and receive life. And we see that belief in the eternal deity of Jesus is required by noting the requirement to believe in the "Son of God" in vs. 16, 18, and 36.

I will discuss Romans 3 in the next article. Please feel free to interact with any of my points in this article at any time.

A Case For the Cross

2008-02-11T10:27:00.005-06:00

We have seen much discussion in the last several months over the content of saving faith. Some hold to the view that the only content required for saving faith is belief that Jesus can and will give eternal life to all those who believe in Him alone.

I reject this view. I maintain that, in today's dispensation, the lost are required to believe that Jesus is God, that they are sinners, that Jesus died for their sins and rose again, and that the only way they can be forgiven of their sins and have eternal life is by trusting in Jesus alone.

As such, a major difference between my view and the other view is that my view requires belief in the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus. "The Cross" sort of sums up these requirements, therefore I have titled this series, "A Case For the Cross".

In this series I will be presenting arguments for my view, as well as arguments against the other view. Much of this is information that I have already presented at various blogs, but some of it will be new. And now it will all be together in one place.

Below is an outline of the points I will be addressing. I have been reading and participating in this general discussion for about 6 months now, and I feel I have a pretty good handle on all the major points coming from the other side. In fact, I have had personal email exchanges with Bob Wilkin, who told me that I understand his view well and he would make no correction of my understanding of this issue. I have also spent time reading articles and comments by the major proponents of the opposing view.

So, please feel free to interact and discuss any point you desire. And if you believe you have something that's not on my outline, let me know about it. If I agree that it is something not already covered that contributes to the discussion, I'll address it.

Outline for "A Case For the Cross":

I. Arguments For

a. John 3
b. Romans 3
c. "The Gospel"
d. 1 Corinthians 15

II. Arguments Against

a. Purpose of the Gospel of John
b. People in the NT were saved w/o believing these things
c. Saving faith is only "the right thing in the right object/historical person"
d. Meaning of the titles "the Christ" and "the Son of God"
e. John 11 (Martha)
f. John 4 (Samaritan woman)
g. 1 Timothy 1:16
h. Blind man in John 9
i. Paul's conversion
j. The jailer in Acts 16
k. Paul and Peter's presentation of Jesus throughout Acts
l. Miscellaneous verses

III. Pushbacks to "Arguments For"

a. No specific verse or explicit statement
b. "The Gospel" means more than just what is required for saving faith
c. 1 Corinthians 15 - the 500 witnesses should be required too
d. Too complex, too many subpoints, checklist evangelism, laundry list, etc.
e. Someone could believe these things and still not be saved
f. It's a moot point/theory because these doctrines are always presented by everyone anyway