Let's be reasonable with one another, shall we?

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Zane Hodges = Free Grace Theology?

Danny, a commenter on the previous post, said, "It's important that people understand that Hodges does NOT speak for the entire FG community. It's not fair to frame discussions on Free Grace Theology around Zane Hodges' views only."

Article on Grace Evangelical Society Website disgreeing with Zane Hodges

I told him I would post this link for all to see. I learn something new everyday.


  • Hi Rose, I always look forward to your posts.

    Forgive the apparent bluntness of this post, but who actually believed the FG position before Zane Hodge? I ask this because I read elsewhere the following comment:

    If one is not careful he can misrepresent an author by selectively quoting him. [One could even selectively quote a Commitment Salvation writer and make it appear that he held to Free Grace Salvation.]

    I see John Calvin has been claimed as a FGer etc.,Perhaps the "Who's Who" of FG theology is ready to be written yet?

    By Blogger GOODNIGHTSAFEHOME, at 6/16/2007 1:18 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Antonio, at 6/16/2007 9:19 PM  

  • Yes, it is true that some FG people want to distance themselves from Zane Hodges. They think that some of his doctrine is "far out". That is fair enough.

    I agree that FG has differing views on things.

    I am happy to call all within FG my brother. They are concerned about the freeness of Christ's offer and are critical of the attempts made by Lordship Salvation to frontload and backload the gospel with works.

    Yet in the final analysis, I am deeply persuaded that the framework Zane gives in consideration of a studied biblical position is superior in content and scholorly research than other views within FG. Furthermore, it is more consistent.

    It is one thing to say that there are other views within FG; I heartily welcome them in the arena of Christian thought. It is something altogether different to say they are all of equal merit, which they are not.


    By Blogger Antonio, at 6/16/2007 9:21 PM  

  • Antonio,

    You link to Chafer Theological Seminary on you web site but I do not know if you subscribe to their journal. The issue that just came out seems to be largely dedicated to the divisive issues embroiling the free grace community.

    I believe that the following two quotes from that journal speak to some of the issues much more eloquently than I even can:

    Some of the statements made under the discussion of the "bare minimum" are enough to incite even the most theologically dense among us. However, is the "bare minimum" the hill we want to die on? Is it the cause celebre that would lead us away from that caring, supportive, intimate fellowship that has been such a blessing to all of us?

    An Open Letter to the Free Grace Community
    Arch Rutherford
    CTS Journal Vol.12, No. 2, Fall 2006
    pg 4

    A cause celebre that should lead us away from fellowship may be labeled the "bare maximum." It is "bare" because there are things that must definitely be excluded from our gospel message. To adorn our gospel message with human works, calls to discipleship, Christ's Lordship, promises to live differently, deep sorrow and contrition over our sins, and/or calls to faith that can only be validated by perseverance is to pervert the Gospel of true grace and to deceive those who listen. Such a presentation will likely result in people trusting themselves, rather than in the promises of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    An Open Letter to the Free Grace Community
    Arch Rutherford
    CTS Journal Vol.12, No. 2, Fall 2006
    pg 5

    I believe that pastor Rutherford is correct and I am more than happy to call my self free grace using the "bare maximum" definition. You may believe that Zane Hodges' exposition of the free grace position is the best, most thoroughly researched, and consistent free grace position and that is your right. However, are you willing to break fellowship with those of us who disagree?

    Glenn W.

    By Anonymous GlennW, at 6/17/2007 2:16 PM  

  • Glenn,

    This sentence from my comment here on this post should have answered your question:

    I am happy to call all within FG my brother.


    By Blogger Antonio, at 6/17/2007 9:49 PM  

  • Thanks for posting the link to this article. I put it up at my site as well.


    By Blogger Lou Martuneac, at 6/19/2007 7:47 AM  

  • Thanks for reading the link. I hope you all are having a blessed week.

    Colin, I don't understand your comment. I am sorry, but it confused me!

    Glenn, thanks for those quotes.

    Maybe the right label for me is a "bare maximum free-gracer"? hahaha

    I am glad for your comment too. :~) Your friend.

    By Blogger Rose~, at 6/19/2007 5:41 PM  

  • Lou, I am glad you found it helpful.

    By Blogger Rose~, at 6/19/2007 5:41 PM  

  • Hi Rose,

    Sorry for confusing you. I am simply wondering who actually believed FG theology before Zane Hodge? Then I pointed out the quotation of another the mischief of selective quotes to prove a point. The whole thing seems
    so new and that doesn't augur well in my book. :-)

    By Blogger GOODNIGHTSAFEHOME, at 6/20/2007 8:56 AM  

  • May I add that there are those I know who hold to Calvinism and are still Free Gracers. Including Fructenbaum, Ryrie, Pickering, and Cole.

    By Blogger J. Wendell, at 6/20/2007 11:04 AM  

  • I do not think the position associated with Ryrie has the same consistency as the Hodges-Wilkin position.

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 6/20/2007 11:08 AM  

  • Yes, but Ryrie would be considered FG, would he not?

    By Blogger Rose~, at 6/20/2007 11:10 AM  

  • goodnightsafehome,

    I believe the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) coined the term "free grace" about 20 years ago in response to lordship salvation. However, you will find that just about any graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary (which pre-dates the GES by decades) hold to what would now be called a free grace stance. I am also confident that this debate, in different guises, has been going on for centuries.

    Glenn W.

    By Anonymous GlennW, at 6/20/2007 11:12 AM  

  • Yes.

    The problem is that some Free Gracers insist that it is necessary to know certain facts to receive eternal life; facts that go beyond simple trust for that gift; that is that one is a sinner, that Christ died and rose again, that Christ is God.

    This is not to say that they deny the free offer of grace or that they believe in a works salvation, but this insistence on knowledge complicates the simplicity of grace.

    Faith is simply receiving a gift, know knowledge is necessary beyond the identity of the giver and what the gift is.

    Every Blessing in Christ


    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at 6/20/2007 11:20 AM  

  • Hi Rose!

    Recent correspondents:

    Then, some us of who are also true Jehovah Witnesses (but not of the Watchtower variety, but of the Isaiah 43:10/Acts 1:8 variety) and who quite happily wish to be known as "Free Grace" people (in line with Ephesians 2:8-9) also believe in the necessity of repentance in salvation.

    While I don't make any man my standard, yet it would be nice to see a few names being bandied round here as guiding stars in this movement. Just for starters.

    By Blogger GOODNIGHTSAFEHOME, at 6/20/2007 12:29 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Who Links Here