solifidian

An Eternal Permanence

2008-11-26T22:55:00.005-05:00

And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever. (1 John 2:17; NKJV)

"This clearly suggests that it is by obedience that we [Christians] establish an eternal identity that outlasts the present world system. If I am a laborer on earth, an architect, a musician, a scientist, a teacher—however skilled I may be at any of these activities—none of the designations will survive the present age. But there is an eternal permanence to the character and activity of a person who can be identified as one who does the will of God."

Zane C. Hodges, The Epistles of John, p. 105

On Saving Faith and Bank Accounts

2008-01-13T22:43:00.000-05:00

The following is an excerpt from What is Saving Faith, by Gordon H. Clark. The Trinity Foundation, 2004, pp. 157-158.

[Begin excerpt] The desire to find a third element in faith, in addition to understanding and assent, seems, if we may judge by popular preaching, to be aided by a psychological illusion. Preachers often use an illustration such as this: You may believe that a bank is sound by having read its financial statement, but you do not and cannot trust it until you deposit your money there. Making the deposit is faith. So, these preachers conclude, belief in Christ is not enough, no matter how much you read the Bible and believe that it is true. In addition to believing you must also trust Christ. That is faith.

The psychological illusion arises from the fact that the two cases are not parallel. In the case of the bank, there is the factor of depositing money. I have some dollar bills to be deposited; I go and deposit them in Bank X and not in Bank Y. Therefore I trust Bank X and do not trust Bank Y. But such is not the case. The reason I deposit money in this bank and not another is simply that my financial condition is far from warranting two bank accounts. I believe that Bank Y is quite as sound as Bank X. Both have competent administrators. Then, too, they both insure all depositors up to $10,000 and my account is less than one-tenth of this. I choose Bank X, not because I trust it more, but simply because it is nearer my home. This is a matter of convenience—not of faith. What is more, in the bank illustration there is a physical factor—depositing bills or checks; whereas in saving faith there is no such factor. Thus arises the illusion. Those who use such illustrations import into a spiritual situation something, a physical motion, that cannot be imported into it. There is nothing in the spiritual situation analogous to depositing the currency. There is believing only: nothing but the internal mental act itself. To suppose that there is, is both a materialistic confusion and an inadmissible alteration of the Scriptural requirement. [End excerpt]

Is Faith Mere Intellectual Assent?

2007-12-21T11:13:00.000-05:00

The following is an excerpt from Absolutely Free, by Zane Hodges, pages 30-31 :

In [discussions of faith], we should discard words like mental or intellectual altogether. The Bible knows nothing about an intellectual faith as over against some other kind of faith (like emotional or volitional). What the Bible does recognize is the obvious distinction between faith and unbelief!

No one needs to be a psychologist to understand what faith is. Still less do we need to resort to “pop psychology” to explain it. It is an unproductive waste of time to employ the popular categories—intellect, emotion, or will—as a way of analyzing the mechanics of faith. Such discussions lie far outside the boundaries of biblical thought. People know whether they believe something or not, and that is the real issue where God is concerned.

But lordship salvation drives its adherents into a psychological shadowland. We are told true faith has volitional and emotional elements. But we might ask: In what sense?

Have we not all at some time been compelled by facts to believe something we did not wish to believe? Did we not, in a sense, believe against our will? Was that not even the case with Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus? And is it not equally true that we often believe things without any discernible emotional response to them, while at other times we are overwhelmed with emotion?

Such questions show how precarious and contradictory are the notions about faith which arise out of popular psychology.

The one thing we cannot do, however, is to believe something we don’t know about. That is why the apostle Paul declared quite plainly, “And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?” (Ro 10:14). And he added appropriately, “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (10:17).

Does that involve the intellect? Of course! But is it mere intellectual assent? Of course not! To describe faith that way is to demean it as a trivial, academic exercise, when in fact it is no such thing.

What faith really is, in biblical language, is receiving the testimony of God. It is the inward conviction that what God says to us in the gospel is true. That—and that alone—is saving faith.

[End excerpt]

Robert Reymond on Sanctification

2007-11-26T10:27:00.000-05:00

The following is an excerpt from A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, by Robert F. Reymond:

To the degree that the Christian “reckons himself dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:11), that is, to say to the degree that the Christian takes seriously the reality of his Spirit-wrought union with Christ, to that degree he will find his definitive sanctification coming to actual expression in his experiential or progressive sanctification. The holiness of the Christian’s daily walk directly depends upon his union with the Savior.

Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), p. 739.

The Puritan Way of Death

2007-11-16T22:48:00.000-05:00

The following is an excerpt from The Puritan Way of Death: A Study in Religion, Culture, and Social Change, by David Brannard:

Thus for as long as he [a Puritan] lived, even the most apparently obvious candidate for Sainthood did not dare take his election for granted; there was no way in this world of knowing with certainty whether one was saved or not. In other words, the best sign of assurance was to be unsure. As a result, the devout Puritan constantly examined himself and assailed all evidence of impurity, filling journals and diaries with interminable exhortations on the depravity of all men, but most importantly himself …. The Puritan faith, then …was instead a faith marked by a never-ending, excruciating uncertainty. So intense and so demanding of resolution was this uncertainty that on one occasion, as John Winthrop related, “a woman of Boston congregation, having been in much trouble of mind about her spiritual estate, at length grew into utter desperation, and could not endure to hear of any comfort, etc., so as one day she took her little infant and threw it into a well, and then came into the house and said, now she was sure she should be damned, for she had drowned her child.”

David E. Stannard, The Puritan Way of Death: A Study in Religion, Culture, and Social Change, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 75.

A Quote from J. Gresham Machen

2007-10-31T10:08:00.000-05:00

The Epistle to the Galatians is directed just as much against the modern notion of “salvation by character” or salvation by “making Christ Master” in the life or salvation by a mere attempt to put into practice “the principle of Jesus,” as it is directed against the Jewish ceremonialists of long ago: for what the Apostle is concerned to deny is any intrusion of human merit into the work by which salvation is obtained. That work, according to the Epistle to the Galatians and according to the whole New Testament, is the work of God and of God alone. (J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith?, pp. 192-193)

Is Faith a Gift?

2007-02-25T18:20:00.000-05:00

Excerpted from page 167 of The Gospel Under Siege, by Zane C. Hodges.

[Begin Excerpt] It is often claimed by theologians that man has no capacity to believe and that faith, like salvation, must be given to him as a gift. But this view is contradicted by 2 Corinthians 4:3,4 where Paul writes, “But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose mind the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine upon them.”

From Paul’s words it appears that Satan himself does not regard men as constitutionally incapable of faith. Instead, from his point of view, men are in danger of believing unless he actively blinds them! He must therefore prevent the truth from dawning on their hearts. This may be compared to an effort to keep light out of a dark room by (for example) drawing together a thick pair of curtains. The room can receive light but is prevented from doing so by the curtains. If someone pulls the curtains apart, light will automatically shine into the room.

God’s role in bringing men to faith is therefore revelatory. (See our Lord’s statement to Peter in Matthew 16:17). As Paul puts it in 2 Corinthians 4:6, God shines His light into our hearts. Perceiving God’s word as light (i.e., as truth) is precisely what faith does. When the truth of the sufficiency of Christ for the eternal salvation of every believer dawns on our hearts, at that moment we are believing the light and thus know that, in so believing, we ourselves are eternally saved. Thus faith is a capacity built into man by His Creator, just like the capacity to think or speak. None of these capabilities are obliterated by the Fall, but man’s use of them is seriously impaired by his own sinfulness. As a sinner, he prefers to believe a lie rather than the truth (See Romans 1:20-25).

Yet despite man’s darkened heart and Satan’s special efforts to prevent man’s illumination, God can break through all this darkness with the light of His truth and in so doing can meet a response of faith in man. So it is clear from all this that man’s created capacity to believe things is awakened by the illumination God gives in the Gospel. Belief in the truth is impossible for any man so long as he remains persuaded that the truth is false. Once he is persuaded of the truth of the saving message, he has believed it.

Finally, one must say that the Reformed view that man is in every sense a “corpse” without even the capacity to believe the light when it shines forth to him is a gross distortion of reality. It is a transparent effort to press a metaphor like “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1) well beyond the legitimate parameters of that metaphor. Man is “dead in sins” precisely because he is separated from God’s own kind of life, as Paul states in Ephesians 4:18: “being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them.” But the metaphor is seriously misused when it is made the basis for denying to man any and all capacity to receive the truth of God as light. If man had no such capacity, he could not be charged with sin for his unbelief, as Jesus told the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no sin” (John 9:41). [End Excerpt]

Is Trust (Fiducia) a Component of Faith or a Synonym for Faith?

2007-02-12T20:27:00.000-05:00

Gordon H. Clark explains in What is Saving Faith (p. 47):

“The crux of the difficulty with the popular analysis of faith into notitia (understanding), assensus (assent), and fiducia (trust), is that fiducia comes from the same root as fides (faith). The Latin fide is not a good synonym for the Greek pisteuoo. Hence this popular analysis reduces to the obviously absurd definition that faith consists of understanding, assent, and faith. Something better than this tautology must be found.”

Or as Dr. Bob Wilkin explained in his debate with Dr. James White:

[Begin] You’ve heard the old line: notitia, assensus, fiducia. That’s understanding, acceptance, and trust. Gordon Clark points out that fiducia is a synonym for faith. And so when you say “understanding, acceptance, and trust,” that’s like saying, “understanding, acceptance, and faith.” You can’t say that a part of something is the whole thing. It would be like saying that a car is made up of glass, metal, and automobile. Well, you can’t do that because an automobile is a car. Faith is fiducia. And so when he says that “you’re choosing to believe,” no, you don’t choose to believe. The evidence either convinces you or it doesn’t. And if the evidence convinces, you believe. [End]

Can We be Sure of Someone Else’s Salvation?

2007-02-05T17:29:00.000-05:00

Transcribed from the question and answer session with Zane Hodges that followed his lecture, Once Again James 2, delivered at the 2005 Grace Evangelical Society annual conference. The lecture dealt with the concept of “justification by works” as found in James 2:21-26.

Question from the Audience: This [question] wasn’t what you were speaking about, but it relates. Can we ever be sure of someone else’s salvation? If so, based on what?

Professor Hodges: First John 5:1 says, “Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” And it says that in the context where it is trying to identify the brother that we are to love. I think that has to be understood in the light of Johannine theology, but to believe that Jesus is the Christ is to believe that He is the one who gives eternal life to the person who believes in Him. And, personally, I don’t think there is any grounds for doubting the salvation of someone who apparently with all sincerity and understanding says, “That is what I believe.”

Now I admit that I have met a few people who told me that, and I didn’t think that was really what they really believed, so I had some doubts about that. But most of the people that I meet and interact with can easily convince me they’re saved by saying, “Yes, I know I’m going to heaven because I believed in Christ, and He’s given me eternal life.” And unless they’re the best liars in the world, I think they’re brothers.

Follow-up Question: Just a follow-up on that, what would lead you to question a person if that is what they affirmed? What in those situations made you question that?

Professor Hodges: Well I knew a little bit about the person and the circumstances under which the person was talking to me, so I had suspicions… They were telling me, I think, what they thought I wanted to hear…That does happen. People are capable of that, but, you know, how often does that happen? To me it hasn’t happened very much, but it has happened a couple of times.

Is There Such a Thing as a Believer Who Never Does Anything as a Result of His Faith?

2007-02-05T09:59:00.000-05:00

Transcribed from the question and answer session that followed the lecture, Once Again James 2, delivered by Zane Hodges at the 2005 Grace Evangelical Society annual conference. The lecture dealt with the concept of “justification by works” as found in James 2:21-26.

Question from the Audience: Are you saying that faith will at least be manifested externally at some point in the life. I know you haven’t specifically addressed that question [in your lecture], but here’s the question: Would you say that faith is externally manifested at least at some point in every believer’s life?

Professor Hodges: No.

Followup question: Would you like to elaborate on that? [laughter from the audience].

Professor Hodges: No…[laughter from the audience]…, however, I will [laughter from the audience]. This is closely related to the long-running question: Is there such a thing as a believer who never ever does anything as a result of his faith? My answer to that, what I have gone into print as saying, is I don’t think there is any such thing as a believer who never ever does anything at all as a result of their faith, but I cannot prove it from Scripture, so it cannot be a fundamental doctrine.

But even if a person does one or two things as a result of their faith, that is certainly not grounds for assurance of salvation. And the really important issue is that works are not indispensable to an assurance of eternal life. What is indispensable to that is the promise of God and our conviction that that promise is true.

If Faith is Passive, Why is a Person Commanded to Believe?

2007-01-29T11:16:00.000-05:00

Transcribed from A Veiled Reference, by Dr. John Niemelä, Professor of Hebrew and Greek at Chafer Theological Seminary.

[Quote]
Now one of the things [i.e., questions] that is often alleged when we speak about a passive or a stative idea of faith is, “Well, how do we deal with the fact the Bible commands belief? ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved’ [is a] command. That sounds like I have to do something. That sounds like I have to make a decision. That sounds like I have to do something.”

Commands to believe do expect a volitional response. There is no denying that. But the volitional response is in a slightly different area than we might think. The unbeliever obeys the command [to believe] by exposing himself or herself to biblical truth, allowing God’s word to make its persuasive case.

We look at the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of John is arranged around eight signs that are designed to prove to the reader that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing this, a person may have life in His name.

God’s word is persuasive. The unbeliever who exposes himself to God’s word and seeks not to put up barriers, seeks not to add to the veil, but seeks to come to an understanding, a fair understanding of what it really is saying, is someone who is open to be persuaded. That’s all that a person can do—make themselves open to be persuaded. Because what happens when we decide to believe something that we know isn’t true? We’re “making belief.” We have to know that it is true before we can believe it. The point that we have understood it to be true, we have believed it. But we have to be open to allow it to persuade. And the unbeliever is in that same situation. The command is to put ourselves in a position of being able to be persuaded by the word. If a person says, “I’m open to the word,” and he never opens the Book, and never talks to Christians, and never does anything to be exposed to the message, he can say he’s open all day, but is he?

The concept is: in order to be persuaded, we have to have the word in a position to be able to affect us. The issue for the unbeliever is to be open to God’s truth that is revealed by the Spirit. When he or she becomes persuaded that Christ has irrevocably given him or her everlasting life, he or she has believed.

[End Quote]

What’s the Difference Between Understanding and Believing?

2007-01-22T11:57:00.000-05:00

Transcribed from A Veiled Reference, by Dr. John Niemelä, Professor of Hebrew and Greek at Chafer Theological Seminary.

I may understand an argument without understanding it to be true. What we’re seeking to do here is to differentiate what’s the difference between understanding something and believing it. If I understand something to be true, I have believed it. But if I understand how it’s supposed to work, but I don’t understand it to be the truth or the way something really happens, then the only kind of believing I can do there is “make-believe.” I can pretend for the purposes of discussion that something is true that I know is not true. Understanding doesn’t guarantee that I understand it to be true, but believing means I understand it to be true. Now I may understand something; I may be able to wrestle with it. But it is an advance on the thinking for me to understand it as true.

The Sawyer / Johnson Dialogue - Conclusion

2007-01-18T16:19:00.000-05:00

Part 1 Part2 Part 3
Part 4 Part 5

Please see the introductory paragraph to Part 1 of this series for an explanation of the literary license taken in formatting this dialogue.

Phil: I’m on vacation this week while I’m speaking here and there and attending a board meeting, so I’m not going to spend hours and hours on this, but I do want to say that the problems with Hodges’ soteriology are deep and systemic. The fact that his supporters often want to steer discussions to niggling points about Hodges’ novel exegesis of James 2 is telling. If we’re going to spend time debating this, can we at least deal with the big-picture issues first?

Jodie: Your desire to start with the big picture is reasonable, but in practice, the only way to understand the big picture is through the details. Of course, the only way to truly understand the details is by understanding the big picture, so proper interpretation has to proceed patiently in order to allow those two parallel concerns to be discovered without running roughshod over either aspect. This is what is so amazing about Hodges’ interpretation. James’s thought shines in a very cohesive, subtle and rational way. His diatribe argument does prove the narrow point, and also indicates that his big picture interpretation of James is far more probable than the popular view. This is why I’ve focused on it. The idea that Hodges’ view on James is driven by a need to “explain away” anything is farcical.

Phil: Hardly. Hodges’ “exposition” of James came years after he had published multiple books setting forth his soteriological peculiarities. As far as I know, he has never claimed that he came to these views by reading James. Rather, his James volume was a response to people who kept pointing him to James in reply to his repeated championing of the idea that dead faith is nonetheless saving faith.

Jodie: I can’t believe I’m reading this. Trust me, he claims just that. Apparently we’ll just have to agree to disagree on Hodges’ inner motivation! One of the most obvious and hilarious differences between the GOP and the Dems is that the latter is obsessed with their perception of tainted motivations.

No hurry, if you’re on vacation, I’m busy too. I’ll continue to respect your time and will definitely try to be as concise as possible.

Since you have described your view of the ‘big picture’ of James, I’ll flesh out my view.

Verse 1:19 is the key verse that acts as a hinge between the ideas of the introduction and the main body. This introduction posits James desire that the believers live a consistent God’s word empowered lifestyle which is not only “steadfast” (consistent) but “perfect and complete” (a God empowered expression of the miracle of new birth, the word implanted). The climax of the introduction is a contrast between how sin produces death but God sovereignly produces the miracle of new birth.

The key verse says, in light of the trials God is giving you to produce a consistent spirit-filled life in you, be quick to receive meekly God’s Word, be slow to speak and slow to wrath. the body of the epistle unpacks these three admonitions.

James beautiful conclusion reminds the readers of the practical ramifications of applying this advice, the need for the patient faith of Job and Elijah.

In general James is shot through with the wisdom of the Sermon on the Mount, concerns doing God’s will and is essentially the law of Christ. James insists that not just the Mosaic law had to be obeyed in total not in part but that every syllable of the Lord’s lofty commands must be obeyed:

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

At the very end, James teaching on the proper response to trials, humble obedience, which is the only response that will yield righteousness in the lifestyle of the Christian, is threaded into his desire to obey the royal command to love:

James 5:19-20 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

I’m sure there is much you disagree with here, but maybe I touch on some things you would agree with.

God bless.

This was the end of the dialogue, as far as I know.

The Sawyer / Johnson Dialogue - Part 5

2007-01-15T10:23:00.000-05:00

Part 1 Part2 Part 3 Part 4

Please see the introductory paragraph to Part 1 of this series for an explanation of the literary license taken in formatting this dialogue.

Phil (continuing his critique of Hodges’ view of James 2): 4. Which is to say that the major defect in Hodges’ whole soteriological system goes far deeper than his eccentric exegesis of James 2. In fact, this much is plain from the outset: Hodges’ unusual reading of that text is necessitated in the first place by the theological peculiarities he brings to the text—especially his inadequate understanding of the new birth and his semi-pelagian notion that divine grace isn’t efficacious for salvation without the sinner’s prior consent. But apart from the framework of no-lordship presuppositions, Hodges’ interpretation of James 2 doesn’t even make sense. That, I would think, is why he has a hard time getting critics to interact seriously with his exegesis of the passage. Most of them are left scratching their heads and wondering why anyone would think sound exegesis should ever require so much gymnastic and contortionistic skill.

Jodie: Phil, you also wrote of Hodges “semi-pelagian notion that divine grace isn’t efficacious for salvation without the sinner’s prior consent.” If you mean by “prior-consent” a sinner’s believing in Christ, as you can see by the above scenario, sinners can’t believe without God drawing them and illuminating their minds to the truth of Christ. Belief itself is simply not a voluntary reaction, it is involuntary. That the last few centuries of Calvinist theologians have rejected this is not exactly a feather in their cap. Name one of your political beliefs that you could change at will. I don’t agree with everything Nancy Pearcey says but her simple definition of faith/belief is excellent, saying that beliefs are thoughts that stick around. In the case of saving faith, belief is a glorious thought that normally coincides with the emotional catharsis we see in the man born blind.

Phil: I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more inadequate description of saving faith.

Jodie: At least we’re getting somewhere. “For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.’” Scripture is crystal clear that we are called righteous by God because of our unadorned faith. In my opinion, your real authority is not the word of God but your own conscience. You’re holding the word of God captive to your conscience instead of Luther’s vice versa.

The Sawyer / Johnson Dialogue - Part 4

2007-01-08T10:48:00.000-05:00

Part 1 Part2 Part 3

Please see the introductory paragraph to Part 1 of this series for an explanation of the literary license taken in formatting this dialogue.

Phil (continuing his critique of Hodges’ view of James 2): 3. Hodges’ view also only works if you have a semi-pelagian notion of faith. Hodges’ interpretation of James 2 is not only semi-pelagian; it is also in conflict with Paul’s clear teaching in Ephesians 2. If faith itself is a gift and the fruit of God’s regenerating work in us (which it is), and if God has ordained even good works for us to walk in (which he has), then Hodges’ interpretation of James 2 is utterly impossible. On the other hand, if you look at James 2 in that same light, the historic interpretation of James 2 makes perfect sense.

Jodie: On your view that Hodges’s belief about faith is semi-pelagian, I’ll leave that type of categorizing to you. But I would say that I see myself as ending up in an adequate place concerning God being the one doing the saving.

Phil: …which is just what all semi-pelagians think. Scripture repeatedly stresses that salvation is entirely by grace, and that even our good works are ordained by God. Anything less than that is not an “adequate” stress on the necessity and efficacy of divine grace for salvation.

And may I point out how ironic your statement is? No-lordship doctrine, which is supposed to safeguard against salvation by works (though it actually makes faith itself a human work) congratulates itself for retaining an “adequate” (but never quite exclusive) focus “concerning God being the one doing the saving.”

Jodie: I’m not sure if you’re ignoring what I say or accusing me of being disingenuous. Faith is absolutely not a human work!

God exclusively is the One who saves. Your less than rational dogmatism on faith being a voluntary decision is what leads you into this cul-de-sac. Again, I asked you to name a political belief which you are holding voluntarily and that therefore if you chose to you could believe other wise. Just name one that if you wanted to you could change at will.

Needless to say I do believe that our salvation is entirely by grace and that all our good works are ordained by God! Could you be more specific about what you are disagreeing with?

Obviously this is a huge topic, so to show you my own view I’ll repost a sketch of how the sovereignty of God interacts with His saving of sinners. I apologize that the scripture references aren’t unpacked.

a) God sovereignly elects people to regeneration. Eph 1:4 On this topic, God also elects some to the kind of suffering and faithfulness that he will reward at the Judgment seat of Christ. Matthew 20:16 2 Peter 1:9-11 Matthew 19:28 John 21:18
b) All men are effectively deceived by the strategic Satan. 2 Cor 4:4
c) No man seeks God on his own. Romans 3:11
d) All men are drawn to Christ. John 12:32
e) All men are convicted of sin, righteousness and judgment. Jn 16:8
f) Most men do not receive these inner witnesses. Matt 7:14; John 1:11 The Spirit may well cease to illuminate them to the light of the Gospel. Mat 12:31
g) The Spirit continues to illuminate the open-minded elect to the truth of Christ using the instrument of the word of God. 1 Peter 1:23
h) The word of God breaks apart the deception and reveals the truth of Christ as Provider of eternal life and Guarantor of future resurrection. John 11:25; John 6:40
i) When the truth has been fully revealed to the sinner, they do not decide to believe, they believe. This is not a decision. Romans 4:21 Psalm 62:1
j) At the moment of belief, eternal salvation happens: the person is justified and born again, meaning regeneration. Galatians 2:16; Jas 1:18 k) Regeneration is the gift of eternal life, but it is really the life of the second Person of the Trinity. It is perfect and holy and is never part of sin. 1 John 5:20; 1 John 3:9; James 1:17

(To be Continued - DV)

The Sawyer / Johnson Dialogue - Part 3

2007-01-02T11:21:00.000-05:00

Please see the introductory paragraph to Part 1 of this series for an explanation of the literary license taken in formatting this dialogue. The view of James 2 being discussed is found in Zane Hodges' commentary on the Epistle of James. For those who are unfamiliar with Professor Hodges' view of James 2:14-26, Dr. Thomas Constable, Department Chairman and Senior Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, espouses a similar view in his notes on James 2, which can be found online here.

Phil (beginning his critique of Hodges’ view of James 2): 1. Hodges hasn’t “proved” anything. He’s making a far-fetched argument driven by his own incorrigible theological conclusions. In other words, Hodges’ interpretation of James 2 is impelled by the need to explain away one of the key passages that refutes his whole soteriological system.

2. James is expressly arguing that dead faith is non-saving faith. He opens the section (v. 14) by asking the question “Can that faith [without works] save”? and his answer is that faith devoid of works is by definition powerless, useless, and ineffectual—“dead.” Of course, that’s the very thing Hodges denies, so he has to redefine the key elements of James’s argument (embodied in the words save and dead.) Note: Hodges’ re-interpretation of James makes no sense whatsoever without his deliberate equivocation on the meaning of the word “save.”

Jodie: You seem to come at this from two different angles. Hodges in fact very much insists that James is teaching “that faith devoid of works is by definition powerless, useless, and ineffectual—“dead” to use your own language.

Phil: Yeah, right. Except for the fact that Hodges’ whole point is that he thinks such “faith” is a sufficient instrument for justification.

Jodie: Phil, this absolutely sums up your inability to get beyond your own paradigm. Hodges does not argue that James is teaching this. Justifying faith is simply not the topic James is on. Justifying faith is not what James is discussing! The faith he is speaking of is here and now faith.

1:5-6 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.

2:16-17 “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

5:7 Be patient, therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient about it, until it receives the early and the late rains.

5:15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up.

5:17-18 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again, and heaven gave rain, and the earth bore its fruit.

Here and now faith! But obviously this may be an area we’ll continue to disagree on!

And yes, his argument on James, and the entire controversy over the gospel, does focus on the fact that the NT writers didn’t use the word “save” and “salvation” as the terms of art that Christian theologians and modern evangelicals do. When we see the words deliver and deliverance we don’t immediately assume the topic is eternal deliverance, and yet with the words save and salvation we tend to do just that. This has been a big mistake. The NT writers, steeped in the OT Scriptures, were quick to think of salvation as being from various threats: eternal condemnation, temporal sin, God’s temporal wrath, and yes, the physical threat of death, as is seen throughout Proverbs and Psalms.

(To Be Continued - DV)

The Sawyer / Johnson Dialogue – Part 2

2006-12-20T13:33:00.000-05:00

Please see intro to Part 1 for an explanation of the literary license taken in formatting this dialogue.

Jodie: [The Book of] James has been wrongly used for centuries to undermine bare faith alone in Christ for eternal life. Since you challenged us to challenge you on Pulpit magazine, here it is:

Phil: I can’t wait. But before you proceed, I do want to point out that your whole position is based on a de facto denial of the perspicuity of Scripture. You’re suggesting not merely that the majority of teachers and church leaders in visible church have veered off track (what the Reformers were saying) but that practically no one in the history of the church has correctly understood James’s central message. Downplay it all you like, that is a terribly audacious claim, and it is not at all what Luther and the Reformers were suggesting about the reforms they were proposing.

Jodie: This is absolutely the opposite of what I’m saying. The Scriptures, at least on the topic of the offer of eternal life, are startlingly clear, but it simply is a smack in the face to man’s pride and a rattling of his “common sense.” On this particular topic, the Scriptures fly in that face of man’s wisdom. If it’s true that all of the history of Christian theologians have been misconstruing James, I’ll still side with the historical-grammatical method and attempt to know how it would have been understood by its original readers. The format of the diatribe comes into play here, since the format of diatribe was inflexible, the original readers wouldn’t have stumbled on the demons passage. So it provides a check on one’s big picture interpretation.

Hodges has proved that the demons comment is constantly quoted out of context by perseverance theologians, yet none of you explain why he is wrong. I’d love to hear your explanation of why there is no example of a Hellenistic source where the cutting response with a direct address doesn’t indicate the return (from the disagreeing voice) back to the voice of the main speaker, in this case James.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?

This understanding of the demons remark, suggests the possibility that James’s point is this: (a) that the disagreeing voice is wrong to say faith in God always results in action, and (b) that there exists a faith in the here and now power of God that isn’t active. This non-productive faith is dead orthodoxy. It doesn’t help–in the here and now–the one who has the faith–or the one who is in desperate need for food, or the isolated widows and orphans. Verse 26 confirms that this possibility is far more probable than the passionate eisegesis that reads so much into James explicit comments.

Verse 26 contains two analogies. James draws an analogy between “the body” and “faith” (in God). He also suggests an analogy between “the spirit” and “works.” The reference to the spirit of a man seems awkward if the reference is to the state of spiritual deadness from which we become born again. Spiritual life doesn’t exist in a person before being born again, so it’s awkward to speak of “the” spirit, if it doesn’t exist. More likely, James is insisting that works are like “the spirit” which exhilarate our faith in God.

Your rejection of Hodges’ arguments, which granted have not been done justice here, seems to rest on an unwillingness to consider how his arguments fit the words in the text.

(To Be Continued - DV)

The Sawyer / Johnson Dialogue – Part 1

2006-11-15T11:51:00.000-05:00

There was an exchange between Jodie Sawyer (Free Grace proponent) and Phil Johnson (Lordship Salvation proponent) in the comments section of one of the sfpulpit.com articles a few weeks ago. I thought the exchange was interesting and worth a second look. Please be advised that literary license has been taken in editing the dialogue for readability. The dialogue has been reformatted so that it appears to be more of a point/counterpoint, real-time exchange rather than an exchange that took place over several days. If you are concerned that the participants are not being represented fairly and want to read the comments in their original, unedited format, the article and comments can be found here.

Jodie: Phil Johnson, if this is the end of this series, let me ask you to respond to two of the Free Grace (FG) arguments with regards to the book of James.

Phil: By the way, I’ve been scanning the comments here [the sfpulpit.com website], watching for anything specifically addressed to me, and finally gave up. It seemed all the people who were itching to argue about Lordship over at PyroManiacs didn’t really want to engage the subject with me here. I finally gave up looking every day, and Jodie posted this comment after that. Sorry I missed it.

Jodie: On Amazon, you invoked Don Carson in your review of the Zane Hodges’ commentary on that epistle. He has said:

“Perhaps one of the most intriguing–and disturbing–features of Zane C. Hodges’s book. . . is that to the best of my knowledge not one significant interpreter of Scripture in the entire history of the church has held to Hodges’ interpretation of the passages he treats. That does not necessarily mean Hodges is wrong; but it certainly means he is probably wrong, and it probably means he has not reflected seriously enough on the array of fallacies connected with [reading one’s own presuppositions into the biblical text].”

Though Carson’s quote is wrapped in an accusation of (“probable”) eisegesis, anyone who has carefully examined Hodges' arguments knows how securely his arguments are bonded to the context as well as to straightforward observations on Greek rhetoric and grammar. In fact, Don Carson was almost certainly plagiarizing the words of Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V:

“For it is certain that a single monk must err if he stands against the opinion of all Christendom. Otherwise Christendom itself would have erred for more than a thousand years.”

Phil, in the same way that the Reformation was based a fresh view of the NT based in turn on a handful of passages in Romans and Galatians, there needs to be another reformation based on letting the Gospel of John determine our thinking on the offer of eternal life.

Phil: Well, this is precisely the difference between the attitude of the typical no-lordship wonk and that of the Reformers. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and their heirs did not blow this criticism off as not worthy of consideration. They were not so arrogant as to think that after 1500 years of church history, the light of brand-new truth had finally dawned on their enlightened brows for the first time ever. They were convinced that the doctrines they were teaching had a long pedigree, and they labored to make that point. Have you ever noticed how often Luther quotes Augustine, and Jerome, Anselm, and others? If he had imagined for a moment that he was teaching a doctrine no Christian had ever seen in Scripture before, he would never have pursued the argument.

That’s why the Reformation was called a “Reformation” rather than a “Reinvention” of Christianity. (Or a New Perspective, or whatever.)

If it honestly doesn’t bother Hodges that no other serious commentator has ever thought James is saying what Hodges thinks he is saying, it ought to bother him. I stand by that. That was also Don Carson’s point.

Now, before someone tries to caricature the point I’m making: I’m not suggesting that Luther and Calvin were claiming their whole theological system was identical to that of Augustine, or that anyone else in the early church agreed with them in every detail. But the Reformers did believe (rightly so, in my estimation) that the principle Augustine defended against Pelagius and Coelestius was the same principle they were clarifying and defending against the Medieval Catholic scholastics.

Again: this is not to suggest that the church Fathers were as clear and precise and systematic as the Reformers. I do think the Reformers dealt with the principle of justification by faith and the doctrine of the atonement with an unprecedented clarity. But the clarity, and not the principle per se, was what the Reformers contributed to historical theology. The church fathers were often inconsistent, unclear, and at odds with one another about some of the issues the Reformers agreed on. But every major principle that was brought to the forefront in the Reformation can be found in some form—sometimes in embryonic form, but there nonetheless—in the writings of the church Fathers. John Gill made this point convincingly in The Cause of God and Truth.)

So when you say:

“Phil, in the same way that the Reformation was based a fresh view of the NT based in turn on a handful of passages in Romans and Galatians, there needs to be another reformation based on letting the Gospel of John determine our thinking on the offer of eternal life.”

…you have completely mischaracterized what the Reformers themselves claimed the Reformation was all about.

Can a Person Know If They Have Believed in Christ Apart From Perseverance in Good Works?

2006-10-20T22:20:00.000-05:00

The following is an excerpt from The Gospel Under Siege by Zane Hodges, 2nd Edition, Rendencion Viva, 1992, p. 13.

This view of things [which suggests that a person cannot know whether he has truly believed in Christ at the time of conversion] involves a psychological absurdity. At the level of everyday experience, if a man is asked whether he believes a certain fact or trusts a certain person, he can always give a definite answer. Even an answer like, "I'm not sure I trust that man," reflects a definite psychological state. What it reflects is an attitude of distrust toward the individual in question.

On the other hand, when someone says, "I trust that person," he is expressing a state of mind of which he himself is thoroughly aware.

To claim that a man may trust Christ without knowing whether or not he has trusted Christ, is to articulate an absurd idea. Of course a man can know whether he believes in the offer of salvation or not!

The Bible everywhere takes this fact for granted. When the Philippian jailor enquired of Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30), their answer clearly offered him certainty. The words, "'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household'" (16:31), invite a specific, indentifiable response of heart. Having made it, the jailor could know he was saved. That he did know this is clear from verse 34: "And he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household."

The seriousness of this issue must not be passed over. An insistence on the necessity or inevitability of perseverance in good works undermines assurance and postpones it, logically, until death. But this denial of assurance clashes directly with the clear intent of the Gospel proclamation. It flies in the face of the offer of eternal life made by the Son of God Himself.

Do You Mean That if I Believe in Jesus for Eternal Life, I Can Go Out and Do Anything I Want and Still Go to Heaven?

2006-09-27T11:20:00.000-05:00

The following is an excerpt from Part 2 of Professor Zane Hodges’ speech, How to Lead People to Christ:

Begin Excerpt

[E]xperience [in sharing the gospel] suggests that I will often get a question like this: "Do you mean that if I believe in Jesus for eternal life, that I can go out and do anything I want and still go to heaven?"

I am always pleased to hear this question, because it signals to me that the person is getting the idea that this is a gift and that it is not withdrawn if we behave badly.

My usual way of responding to the question is that being born again is like being born into a family. After that, we are always members of that family, even if we are scoundrels. But if we have good parents, they are not going to let us run wild. They will discipline and correct us and do their best to get us on the right path. Then I point out that, after we get eternal life, God is our heavenly Father and He is the best Parent we could imagine. He will not let us run wild. He will spank us, if need be, and may even take our physical lives away. But Jesus will never cast us out of God’s family.

So far as my own experience goes, I have never had anybody not find this an adequate answer. It seems to clear things up for people, while still maintaining the truth of a passage like John 6:35-40.

End Excerpt

● What Does it Mean to Believe that Jesus is the Christ?

2006-09-06T09:30:00.000-05:00

[Note: editorial license has been taken to clarify this question from the audience.]

This is the final installment of the questions and answers that followed Professor Zane Hodges' Grace Evangelical Society speech in 2000. The speech is found in written form in two journal articles here and here.

Question from the Audience: I know that you’re right that assurance is of the essence of saving faith. You quoted a verse in First John, “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God…” [1 John 5:1]. Is everlasting life a result of believing that Jesus is the Christ?

Answer from Professor Hodges: Yes.

Question from the Audience (continuing): Okay. What if a person believes that Jesus is the Son of God, that He is the Only Begotten, that He is the Christ, but they still have trouble with assurance? What if they believe that Jesus is the Christ, but they still have trouble with assurance? How do you explain that?

Answer from Professor Hodges: My answer to that has always been that when [the Apostle] John says that, “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ,” we must believe that He is the Christ in the sense in which John means that.

So then we must ask the question: What does John mean by the term Christ? And the easiest place to go for the answer to that is John 11:25-26. Jesus saying to Martha, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he die, yet shall he live: Whoever lives and believes in me shall never die.” And then He says, “Do you believe this?” And her answer is a Johannine confession: “Yes, Lord: I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.”

That’s John’s way of telling us that to believe that He is the Christ means to believe that He is the One who guarantees resurrection and eternal life to everyone who believes in Him.

Now if I walk out on the street and say, “Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ?” almost everybody is going to tell me, “Yes” because that [the term Christ] has become a personal name.

And so the key here is to understand the term Christ in the Johannine sense of the word. To believe that He is the Christ is to believe that He is the One who guarantees salvation. And, therefore, to believe that He is the Christ brings assurance.

What if a Person Believes in Christ for Justification Instead of Eternal Life?

2006-09-06T09:27:00.000-05:00

Question from the Audience: Some verses in Scripture that talk about salvation by faith center on the result of eternal life and others focus more on the result of justification. What if someone on a deserted island only had Romans 5:1, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”? It doesn’t say “eternal life” in that verse, but, of course, that’s the result of justification. Let’s say they understood that justification was God declaring them righteous, and they believed in Christ for that. Could they be saved in that way also?

Answer from Professor Hodges: Yes.

Comments on the Passive Nature of Faith

2006-08-28T15:18:00.000-05:00

Continuing with questions following the second half of Zane Hodges’ 2000 speech at the Grace Evangelical Society conference, here is another question and answer:

Question from the Audience: Zane, I’d like for you to address a little further the issue of the concept of the passive nature of faith and the concept that it is not decisional. One of the things that we teach at Chafer Seminary is with regard to Acts 28:24—the response to the last sermon that Paul delivered in Acts being a practical definition, or synonyms for faith are being given there. The response was, “And some were persuaded by the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved.” And so, we have, on one hand, some people being “persuaded”—a passive concept. The alternative is expressed as, “some others disbelieved.” And we use that in order to illustrate that faith is passive; it is not something that we decide to do.

Answer from Professor Hodges: I think that is an important consideration. Basically, as I was using Bob Wilkin as an illustration, I cannot believe that he is the biggest crook in Dallas until I’m persuaded that he is. And if nobody is capable of persuading me, then I’ll never be able to believe that he’s the biggest crook in Dallas.

But let’s suppose that the FBI and the DEA and all of these people come to me on the side, and they present all sorts of proof. And I may be very reluctant to accept their proof, but I have no way of challenging it. And so, at that point, I’m persuaded that what they are alleging is true. Now that’s not an act of the will because a persuasion is different than an act of the will.

And we have, I think, muddied the gospel waters considerably by telling people that they can decide to believe. Nobody can decide to believe. They can be persuaded.

And, therefore, that leaves a very significant area in which the Holy Spirit must operate. God who commanded light to shine out of darkness has shined into our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. God, in the final analysis, must persuade the heart. And, therefore, until a person has the divine illumination that amounts to persuasion, they will remain an unbeliever. And they can’t decide differently.

Now that’s not the same as saying man doesn’t have the capacity to believe—he does. But he does not have the capacity to believe the gospel without the assistance and ministry of the Holy Spirit. And I think that we need to keep that balance. Otherwise, we will think if I have led this person through the proper routine, or the proper prayer, or whatever technique I use, then that does it. If he has decided to do what I told him to do, then that does it. No, a man is not saved until he is persuaded that the gospel message is true.

Is Faith a Volitional Act?

2006-08-28T10:09:00.000-05:00

Continuing with the questions posed to Professor Zane Hodges at the 2000 Grace Evangelical Society conference, the following question was asked after part two of his speech How to Lead People to Christ. A written, abridged version of the speech is available online in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society.

Question from the audience: Wouldn’t you also say that when a person believes, that it is not a volitional act? It’s not that they can decide to believe something. If a person is 99% sure of something, they have not believed it. They can’t make a decision to believe. When we use that nomenclature, we kind of confuse the issue as if … you know … I believe the chair will hold me, but I’m not certain. Therefore they don’t really believe. But it’s not a volitional act that they decide to believe something of which they don’t really hold to.

Answer from Professor Hodges: I agree with that 100%. I cannot decide to believe something that I’m not sure is true. And I’ve often used the illustration: If someone told me that Bob Wilkin is the biggest crook in Dallas, I can’t decide to believe that because I don’t believe that is true. There are bigger crooks. [Laughter from the audience].

Since the Gospel of John Includes the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, Aren't They Necessary to be Understood for Saving Faith?

2006-08-11T12:29:00.000-05:00

Here is another question and answer that followed Professor Zane Hodges' speech on How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1 at the Grace Evangelical Society’s 2000 conference.

Question from the audience: Zane, whatever problems lordship people had with you have just quadrupled after this presentation. I’m not sure that they won’t call a church council to discuss this.

It would seem that one of the retorts that you would get to your thesis today is that since the Gospel of John includes the entire life of Christ and since that life also included His death and resurrection (even alluded to earlier, “God gave His only begotten Son”), that even in John’s thinking, the concept of the cross was not something that was just contributory so that it became support for this minimum level of faith, but that John may have viewed it as necessary to be understood. That’s why those events were included in his Gospel. Therefore, if those events, the death and resurrection, are not included in the presentation, then the message that is to believed has not been fully communicated either. How would you respond to that?

Answer from Professor Hodges: Well I think I would say, first of all, that yes, John obviously presents a lot of material that is supportive of his call to faith in Christ. But, also, against this is the fact that he makes it clear that people did believe in Him without understanding these realities.

What I have said today is basically that the full gospel message is an effective and by far the best tool to bring people to faith in Christ. But if we are asking the theological question, “What is the bare minimum that a person could believe and still be born again?” then I think the Gospel of John would support the idea that the person who believes in Jesus Christ for eternal life is the person who is saved.

I admit the lordship people might have some problems with me, but all I can say is I’ve got a few with them. [Tape 1 ends at this point].

Should We Focus on What a Person Trusts Jesus For—Eternal Life?

2006-08-03T11:32:00.000-05:00

Following is another question and answer that followed Professor Zane Hodges' speech on How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1 at the Grace Evangelical Society’s 2000 conference.

Question from the Audience: In our society the name Jesus means all kinds of things. In your clarifying talk with the person brought up in a previous question (see Question and Answer – Pt. 3) who was confused about the identity of Jesus, wouldn’t you focus not so much on Who is this Jesus, but, rather, that He is the only means of salvation, and that it is a matter of placing my trust in Him alone and not in Him and my followings of this, that, or the other thing, or my walk on the Buddha life, or whatever? So wouldn’t you focus on what it is that we’re trusting Him for, and we’re trusting Him for eternal life solely?

Answer from Professor Hodges: Yes. I would agree with what you said. I would take the Gospel of John and try to introduce him to the real Jesus from the Gospel of John. We have to remember that what I was talking about (and this is not really an answer to your question but to a question that may be floating around here) … we have to remember that what we were talking about just now is the bare minimum which it is absolutely necessary to believe. But very few people get saved by believing a bare minimum. Most people have more information than the bare minimum suggests.

And certainly the Gospel of John gives us more information than the bare minimum, although we can conclude from the Gospel of John what the bare minimum actually is. But the whole Gospel of John is designed to present a Person who is not only worthy of our trust but has every right to demand it. So if I find obscurity in people, and they’re having trouble trusting Jesus, then I want to give them everything I can give them from the Bible to invite their trust in Him. That’s why the Gospel serves. That’s why the truth of the Person of Christ serves.

But we’re not talking about the salvation of loads and loads of people on bare minimal theology. But if we don’t get our focus clear (that was my point today) … if we don’t get our focus clear, and we don’t focus on what the core of what we’re driving for is, we will make confused presentations, and we’ll introduce auxiliary conditions and all the rest of it. Thanks for a good question.

How Much of a Sense of Sinfulness Does a Person Need?

2006-08-01T15:50:00.000-05:00

Question from the audience: This may be a unique problem to me, but I doubt it. Where I live and minister, the people do not have a very strong sense of their sinfulness. And in your presentation, I was looking for that, and I’m not disappointed that I didn’t hear it, but how much of a sense of man’s sinfulness does one need? Now you mentioned the terms salvation and savior. Are we to assume that people are going to naturally know that they are sinners, that there is a rift between them and God? How do you handle this when you’re presenting the gospel?

Answer from Professor Hodges: That’s an excellent question. And the way I would want to answer that is this: In saying that you trust Jesus as the One who guarantees your eternal life, that implies that you need someone to guarantee it. If you came to Jesus and thought, “I don’t really need anybody, not even Jesus, to guarantee my eternal future,” then obviously you couldn’t trust Him to guarantee your eternal future.

So this gets us off what I think is a terrible and misleading dilemma that sometimes occurs in the evangelical movement – how sinful must we think we are before we can believe in Christ? Well if I know that somehow or other I need somebody besides myself to guarantee my eternal well-being, then I have the grounds for believing in Christ.

But in America, as we know, this is not a very major problem. You don’t need to talk to most Americans very long before they will acknowledge that they are sinners. And most people have, because of the near-Christian culture that we have in our society, something of a fear of the future precisely because they know that they are not everything that they ought to be. But when you get, let’s say, to the experience of a little child, how deep must a child’s conscience be of sin before he can trust Christ? If the child is able to say, “I’m going to believe in Jesus to take me to heaven,” that’s enough, regardless of the degree of the child’s sense of sin.

Does a Person Believe in a Person apart from Propositions about that Person?

2006-07-21T15:54:00.000-05:00

Here's another question from the audience for Professor Hodges following the conference speech:

Question from the audience: I thought I previously heard you say that you can’t believe in a person apart from a proposition about that person, as in Gordon Clark’s writings. But now, was I hearing you say a person can believe in a person without believing in a proposition about that person?

Answer from Professor Hodges: No, you did not hear me say that. You’re very alert to have raised that question because, if you will notice, what I was saying all the way through here is that the person is believing that Jesus guarantees their eternal salvation. So, that’s the proposition they believe, but they’re focusing on the Person who guarantees that and not the auxiliary truths which support it. So, at least in my own mind, I’m free from contradiction there.

Is there a Minimum that People Must Understand about His Person?

2006-07-06T14:19:00.000-05:00

Here is another question from the audience following Professor Hodges' speech on How to Lead People to Christ, Pt. 1:

Question from the audience: I just wanted some clarification on … I’m still a little bit unclear on what a person needs to know about Jesus, especially in light of new age religions today and confusion. Say someone believed or thought that Jesus was equated with Buddha, but yet named the name of Jesus but did not understand Who He was in light of Biblical truth. Is there a minimum that people must understand as far as His Person is concerned?

Answer from Professor Hodges: That’s a very good question, and I’m very thankful that I don’t have to make all the refined decisions that are related here. Quite obviously there are concepts of Jesus that move away from any kind of Biblical presentation of Him. I am aware of a movement that finds in Jesus just simply another manifestation of the same phenomenon that we found in Buddha and all the great mystics, that sort of thing. And so my first question is, Is somebody who believes that way, is he going to really believe in the exclusive claims of Jesus? But suppose he does. Then I’m going to leave it to God to decide whether he had his focus on Jesus, or if he was believing in Jesus/Buddha (somebody else). That is something I, frankly, would not even venture to try to decide because really God knows the heart of each individual who believes. The bottom line is, if the Jesus whom we are focusing our faith on is the Jesus of the Bible, that’s the Person we’re talking about, we’re trusting Him for the provision the Bible says He makes for the believer, that’s the person who’s saved. But I am going to admit there are cloudy areas here that God alone will be able to penetrate.

Question from the audience: So talking to an individual who had some beliefs such as this, would you try to clarify or give them assurance of salvation?

Answer from Professor Hodges: I would definitely try to clarify. Absolutely.

What If They Deny the Deity of Christ?

2006-06-30T08:42:00.000-05:00

Here is another question and answer that followed the speech given by Zane Hodges.

Question from the audience: Professor Hodges, what about a person like a Jehovah’s Witness who comes by and willfully and aggressively denies the Deity of Christ? Would that person be saved in light of the purpose statement of the Gospel of John—“that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”? It seems as though they’ve recreated Christ in an image that they want to present Him, and they’re believing in something that John did not present. How would you handle that?

Answer from Professor Hodges: I don’t think that there are very many Jehovah’s Witnesses who have believed that Jesus is the Guarantor of eternal life to every believer. I don’t think that that is a part of their theology.

Question from the audience: Well what about anyone who would aggressively deny the Deity of Christ, not misunderstand, but deny it? Would that person be believing in the Jesus of John 6?

Answer from Professor Hodges: My only question about a person like this, Was there ever a time when, in the simplicity of faith, they trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ for eternal life? If the answer to that is, Yes, there was such a time, then they are still saved even though they may have veered widely off the track. I still would say, however, and this is a guess, but I doubt if there are very many Jehovah’s Witnesses knocking on our doors who were at one time saved, but there may be some of them.

What Must a Person Know About Who Jesus Is?

2006-06-27T12:15:00.000-05:00

The Deserted Island Scenario post below was actually part of a speech given by Professor Zane Hodges in 2000 at a Grace Evangelical Society conference. Following the speech there was a question and answer session with the audience. Below is a question that was raised. As time permits, other questions and answers will be posted. The questions and answers are transcribed from a tape of the speech. Contact the Grace Evangelical Society if you are interested in a copy of the 2 tape series--"How to Lead People to Christ."

Question from the audience: Zane, I think it has been very helpful for you to provoke us to think through how we present the gospel and the content of it. And maybe this is just a point of clarification coming from your opening example (the guy on the beach). Wouldn’t someone need to know something about Jesus, Who He is and His identity, apart from just that five letter name? And isn’t that, in fact, what John does with his gospel? He didn’t write just John 6:43-47. He wrote all 21 chapters, and that’s what he’s trying to communicate—Who Jesus is.

Answer from Professor Hodges: There’s no question that John is giving us a lot of information about Who Jesus is. But the issue that I’m raising is basically the issue of the core minimum which is necessary for salvation. The first question is, Is the Jesus mentioned in John chapter 6 the Jesus who really offers eternal life? The answer to that question is, Yes. And, therefore, if the person believes that this Jesus will indeed do what He has promised to do, he has believed the promise of the Word.

Now, I think what you’re really thinking is, Is it likely that a person with that minimal type of information about Jesus would exercise faith in Him on the basis of that fragmentary verse? I will admit to you, that’s not very likely. And that’s why we try to present the Person of Christ, the work of Christ. What we’re really doing is painting a portrait of Jesus that invites men increasingly to believe in Him.

So in my illustration about Sam, Sam comes up to me and he offers to meet my financial need. And maybe I don’t know a single thing about Sam, but Sam sounds honest to me, and for some reason or another I trust him. But that’s probably not going to happen too often. Maybe I’m even a little gullible there. But if I find out that Sam has enormous resources, that would certainly enhance the offer that he makes to me. But I think the basic issue is, Is the Jesus being referred to in John 6:43 the Jesus who does indeed fulfill His promises? And the answer to that question is, Yes.

The Deserted Island Scenario

2006-05-10T10:38:00.000-05:00

The following has been excerpted from the article, How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1. The article in its entirety is located at the following url:

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000ii/Hodges.htm
The article is written by Zane Hodges.

[Begin Excerpt]

Let me begin with a strange scenario. Try to imagine an unsaved person marooned on a tiny, uninhabited island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. He has never heard about Christianity in his life. One day a wave washes a fragment of paper up onto the beach. It is wet but still partly readable.

On that paper are the words of John 6:43-47. But the only readable portions are: “Jesus therefore answered and said to them” (v 43) and “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life” (v 47).

Now suppose that our unsaved man somehow becomes convinced that this person called Jesus can guarantee his eternal future, since He promises everlasting life. In other words, he believes Jesus’ words in John 6:47. Is he saved?

I suspect that there are some grace people who would say that this man is not saved because he doesn’t know enough. For example, he doesn’t know that Jesus died for his sins on the cross and rose again the third day. Needless to say, there is a lot more he doesn’t know either, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the eternal Sonship of Jesus or the doctrine of the virgin birth.

But why is he not saved if he believes the promise of Jesus’ words? It is precisely the ability of Jesus to guarantee eternal life that makes Him the Christ in the Johannine sense of that term. Our Lord’s exchange with Martha in John 11:25-27 demonstrates this clearly.

You remember it, don’t you? “Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?’” (John 11:25-26). Her reply is a declaration that she believes Him to be the Christ. Martha said, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world” (11:27).

Notice here that to believe that Jesus is the Christ means to believe that He guarantees resurrection and eternal life to every believer. But now let us look at John 4. In that famous passage we have the Samaritans saying to the woman who had encountered Jesus, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world” (John 4:42).

Observe that the common denominator to both passages is the term “Christ.” On Martha’s lips He is “the Christ, the Son of God,” and on the lips of the Samaritans He is “the Christ, the Savior of the world.” This is not an accidental or insignificant difference.

In Jewish prophecy and theology the promised Christ was also the Son of God—that is, He was to be a divine person. Recall the words of Isaiah: “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given…and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (9:6-7). But in Samaritan theology, the Messiah was thought of as a prophet and the woman at the well is led to faith through our Lord’s prophetic ability to know her life. Her words, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet” (4:19) are a first step in the direction of recognizing Him as the Christ. There is no evidence that she or the other Samaritans understood the deity of our Lord.

But they did believe that he was the Christ. And John tells us in his first epistle that “whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (5:1)! A full theology of His person is not necessary to salvation. If we believe that Jesus is the One who guarantees our eternal destiny, we have believed all we absolutely have to believe in order to be saved.

Years ago, as a student at Dallas Theological Seminary, I washed dishes in the dining hall to pay for my meals. Often after I had finished this chore I hung around and talked theology with another student who swept up the kitchen every night. One night this student made a statement to me that I have never forgotten. He said something like this, “I know that I trusted Christ for salvation before I realized that Jesus was the Son of God.” I was surprised because I had never heard anyone say this before.

But I did not quarrel with that statement then, nor would I quarrel with it now. It is the name of Jesus that brings salvation whenever anyone believes in that name as his or her sure hope of eternal well-being. We are not saved by believing a series of theological propositions, however true and important they may be. We are saved by believing in Jesus.

That’s why the man on the deserted island can get saved with only the barest minimum of information. When he believes John 6:47 he is believing in Jesus as the Christ.
[End Excerpt]

Question for discussion: Can a person who has never heard about Christianity in his or her life come to a saving faith in Christ simply by reading and believing the following section of John 6:43-47? Why or why not?

Jesus therefore answered and said to them,... "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life."