# By Grace Through Atheism!?!?!? The Antinomianism of Zane Hodges



## Puritanhead (Aug 12, 2006)

Free Grace Theology and Repentance

comments

[Edited on 8-25-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 12, 2006)

Interesting...


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 12, 2006)

Good comments, Ryan. 

That brand of dispensationalism is certainly more popular today than is the Reformed faith, no doubt about it.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 12, 2006)

Our Confidence

comments

This thread is really irratating to me. I can't believe how shallow and irrational the responses are.


This one guy Glenn writes in response:


> You also state that:
> 
> _"œAmong other things, Hodges says someone can supposedly make a confession of faith, fall into avowed atheism, die an avowed atheist in fact, and is still redeemed. My contention would be that such a person was never regenerate."_
> 
> This, once again, seems to be implying that there are certain sins that a believer just cannot commit (I assume you agree that what you describe is a sin). If this is the case, how do I know what sins are on the proof positive of unbelief list? Just out of academic curiosity, how do I determine what sins would comprise such a list.




I don't know about a list of things, but I am sure being an avowed atheist and concurrently denying the Gospel to your last breath is unforgivable. YOU KNOW UNFORGIVABLE SIN... TO DIE IN UNBELIEF!!! TO REJECT THE GOSPEL IS WRONG!!! Such, a person is obviously not regenerate. Yet Glenn, the dispensationalist antinomian, equates Zane Hodges' hypothetical atheist with a "believer." 



[Edited on 8-13-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 12, 2006)

FreeGracer Is a new member I believe the one who own's the blog you linked too.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 13, 2006)

Okay... I won't waste anymore time discussing things with adherants of the Zane Hodges' barnyard school of theology.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 13, 2006)

If Christ died for all then he failed because not all go to heaven according to them. Or Christ died for all and so we can go on sinning. Or like the mormons we can die without being a mormon and go to the lower heaven and wait for HItler's great grandson to baptize me to a better level of heaven. Similar to Purgatory. 

So...

Either Christ's death and resurection was a failure since it did not save all. 

Or The Bible is worthless because were all going ot heaven anyway so why bother not sinning. 

Blade


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 13, 2006)

> "œHe who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."
> "”John 3:18-20


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 13, 2006)




----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 13, 2006)

God will complete the good work which He starts in all regenerate believers of faith:


> Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
> "”Philippians 2:11-13


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> God will complete the good work which He starts in all regenerate believers of faith:
> 
> 
> ...



Well now, you know that's just for disciples. What about the carnal Christian?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 13, 2006)

This is no Gospel at all. There is no Gospel without the recognition of sin. 

Anathema! Anathema (Gal 1:8-9)


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 13, 2006)




----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 25, 2006)

Well, I was naive enough to continue interacting.

 Free Grace Theology and Repentance -- A Reply To Matthew Waymeyer Part 5
comments

They only seem adept at emotionally-charged _ad hominems_ and erecting crude straw man caricatures of what both the Reformed and Lordship Salvationist dispensationalists believe.

If you sever Christ's command to "repent" from the Gospel, and what do you have?


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> This is no Gospel at all. There is no Gospel without the recognition of sin.
> 
> Anathema! Anathema (Gal 1:8-9)


 Well, now as evident by the last round of comments, they take issue with my blogspot article that says we must proclaim the law to proclaim the Gospel. I have asked for their Gospel message.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 25, 2006)

Consider this: Zane Hodges, author of _Absolutely Free_ has no problem saying that a person who totally abandons the Christian faith is still saved. He gives the following illustration:


> I have a friend, and more than a friend, a man who labored with me side by side in the ministry of God´s Word in the little group that has become __________ Bible chapel and this friend has fallen away from the Christian faith. He graduated from Bob Jones University and from Dallas Theological Seminary. And about the time when he and his wife left Dallas his wife contracted a very serious illness which over the years got progressively worse until she was reduced to being a complete invalid, and after the death of his wife I visited my friend (who now lives in the Midwest and who teaches Ancient History in a secular university). And as we sat in the living room together, face to face, he told me very frankly but graciously THAT HE NO LONGER CLAIMED TO BE A CHRISTIAN AT ALL, THAT HE NO LONGER BELIEVED THE THINGS THAT HE ONCE PREACHED AND TAUGHT, and the situation was even worse than he described because I heard through others that in the classroom on the university campus he often mocked and ridiculed the Christian faith. As I sat in that living room I was very painfully aware that it was impossible for me to talk that man into changing his mind.


 This illustration presented at the Church of the Open Door which at the time was pastored by G. Michael Cocoris. The series of tapes is entitled, "Great Themes in the Book of Hebrews," which is available through Redencion Viva Publishers).

Hodges insists that this man is truly saved, and that although he lost his faith, Christ did not lose him. Hodges' account for of the Biblical parable of sower tires stir around the traditional interpretation. He claims the hearers on the stony ground, the thorny ground and the good ground (in Christ's parable of the sower) all collectively represent saved individuals. I don't write this man off as unreachable or beyond restoration. This troubled and arguably lost man can always repent and trust in Christ in this life-time, but without faith it is impossible to please God. What Christian would dispute this?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 25, 2006)

Sadly I know many Christians who would dispute that. Hodges has a big audience.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Sadly I know many Christians who would dispute that. Hodges has a big audience.


 Still, even at conservative evangelical colleges such as Liberty, Pensacola, Regent and Wheaton, the Lordship view of John MacArthur is held in higher respect, and many dispensational evangelicals cast derision on these antinomian easy-believism screeds. It just happens the antinomian adherants have really big mouths, and I think their influence is overblown. 

Maybe, it is big on the Left Coast, and at prosperity Gospel churches. I don't know. Heresy tends to run together.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 25, 2006)

It seems to stem from the arminian "Eternal Salvation" beliefs. We believe in preservarance, but that's not the same thing as "eternal security". It seems to me that these people desire so much to defend "eternal security" that they will believe anyone is saved if they so much as nodded their head in some fashion when asked if they believed in God, or said the Lords prayer with their high school football team before a game.

[Edited on 8-25-2006 by houseparent]


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...



Doesn't Charles Stanley teach a view of "eternal security" very similar to Hodges? 

There are also some vocal adherents of this "free grace" teaching on Pal Talk if you ever feel like mixing it up.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> It seems to stem from the arminian "Eternal Salvation" beliefs. We believe in preservarance, but that's not the same thing as "eternal security". It seems to me that these people desire so much to defend "eternal security" that they will believe anyone is saved if they so much as nodded their head in some fashion when asked if they believed in God, or said the Lords prayer with their high school football team before a game.
> 
> [Edited on 8-25-2006 by houseparent]



Eternal Security/OSAS is not Arminian, but is actually a bastardization of Calvinistic teaching. Consistent Arminianism teaches conditional security.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> It seems to stem from the arminian "Eternal Salvation" beliefs. We believe in preservarance, but that's not the same thing as "eternal security."



Now, a wait a minute. I profess a belief in quote-unqoute "eternal security," albeit it is coincidal with the Reformed doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints." (John 10:26-28) 

We might not articulate "eternal security" as the antinomian "Free Grace movement" does; but we can still affirm "eternal security" for the true believer.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> Eternal Security/OSAS is not Arminian, but is actually a bastardization of Calvinistic teaching. Consistent Arminianism teaches conditional security.


 I don't know what is more offensive? Zane Hodges or David Corner?

Conditional preservation of the saints

The Believer's Conditional Security


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> Doesn't Charles Stanley teach a view of "eternal security" very similar to Hodges?


 No, I think you're mistaken here.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 25, 2006)

The James White writes:

There are so many passages that are utterly unintelligible, outside of special pleading, in the anti-Lordship "naked faith" position. Two come to mind immediately:



> how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:20-21) _How do you separate repentance toward God and faith in Christ in this passage?_
> 
> For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. (Titus 2:11-14) _Saving grace teaches us to live sensibly and righteously; and the people of God in Christ are without question described as "zealous for good deeds."_



Reformed theology cuts the ground out from underneath the position presented by Wilkin, for the faith that saves is the work of the Spirit in regeneration itself, and hence cannot possibly be separated from the rest of the work of the Spirit. Hence, there is no contradiction between saying that a person who believes has eternal life and saying that a person who keeps Christ's word has will never see death. Only the synergist has to struggle to explain the relationship: the monergist has a consistent understanding.

I will be noting many more problems with the non-Lordship position in future commentaries.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 25, 2006)

Ryan,
Being the horrible sinner Iam I honestly dont see how they can believe such a lie that we cannot be saved without repentance. Im constanlty battleling the flesh and feel and know in my heart the need of repentance. You cannot read scripture and not see it commanded from Genesis to Revelation. For these people to not see it is plain nuts to me. 

Blade


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Ryan,
> Being the horrible sinner Iam I honestly dont see how they can believe such a lie that we cannot be saved without repentance. Im constanlty battleling the flesh and feel and know in my heart the need of repentance. You cannot read scripture and not see it commanded from Genesis to Revelation. For these people to not see it is plain nuts to me.
> 
> Blade


 Ideas have consequences. How does it effect their evangelism? I asked their proprietor to articulate the Gospel of Grace. They scoff at me for saying evangelist should even make reference to law. However, the law serves it purpose to bring people to knowledge of sin. Without knowledge of sin there is no Gospel. 

Yet they are so averse to proclaiming not only the law and but also Christ's call to repentance. I have to ask what do they proclaim? Do they even proclaim the Gospel of Grace? Where's the Gospel in this malaise where liberty becomes license. All I hear behind the "Jesus saves" platitudes, are faint whispers that vindicate living life however the heck you want to, because grace abounds! Grace apparently even covers the sin of atheistic unbelief to the death, just so long as one once called on Jesus' name, or signed a card, or made _a decision for Christ_. 

It's non-sense like this, that leads people astray and creates stoney and thorny hearers of the Word that fall away. Grace isn't license. What they teach does damage to the church, and the cause of Christ.

_Hell's Best Kept Secret_ (Video)

[Edited on 8-26-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## turmeric (Aug 25, 2006)

Ryan,
This whole doctrine arises from aberrant rivivalist views of sin, decisional regeneration and aberrant views of sanctification popularized by the Keswick Convention in the 19th Century. It's an amalgum of Finney, Wesley, and a guy named William E Boardman, with a little Darby mixed in for flavor, and you get heresy stew! 

These guys are taking it farther, however, and becoming intranigent in their antinomianism, in the process denying the Gospel. All we can do is pray for them and try to articulate the Gospel in hopes that God will save them. I think there's a verse near the end of Jude that warns to use caution when trying to extricate various people from heretical beliefs.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> ...



I thought he did as well...


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Ryan,
> This whole doctrine arises from aberrant rivivalist views of sin, decisional regeneration and aberrant views of sanctification popularized by the Keswick Convention in the 19th Century. It's an amalgum of Finney, Wesley, and a guy named William E Boardman, with a little Darby mixed in for flavor, and you get heresy stew!


 Meg, 

Well that is a well-articulated summation of this antinomian melange and its origins.

_Decisional Regeneration_ by James E. Adams


----------



## turmeric (Aug 26, 2006)

> Robert Dabney, one of the great theologians of the nineteenth century, made some very penetrating observations concerning the disillusionment of people that have been counseled for a decision. Some of these individuals, he said, 'feel that a cruel trick has been played upon their inexperience by the ministers and friends of Christianity in thus thrusting them, in the hour of their confusion, into false positions, whose duties they do not and cannot perform, and into sacred professions which they have been compelled shamefully to repudiate. Their self respect is therefore galled to the quick, and pride is indignant at the humiliating exposure. No wonder that they look on religion and its advocates henceforward with suspicion and anger. Often their feelings do not stop here. They are conscious that they were thoroughly in earnest in their religious anxieties and resolves at the time, and that they felt strange and profound exercises. Yet bitter and mortifying experience has taught them that their new birth and experimental religion at least was a delusion. How natural to conclude that those of all others are delusions also? They say 'the only difference between myself and these earnest Christians is, that they have not yet detected the cheat as I have. They are now not a whit more convinced of their sincerity and of the reality of their exercises than I once was of mine. Yet I know there was no change in my soul; I do not believe that there is in theirs.' Such is the fatal process of thought through which thousands have passed; until the country is sprinkled all over with infidels, who have been made such by their own experience of spurious religious excitements. They may keep their hostility to themselves in the main; because Christianity now 'walks in her silver slippers'; but they are not the less steeled against all saving impressions of the truth.' (6)



 Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt!

[Edited on 8-26-2006 by turmeric]


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



See here and here for starters. Stanley in his book _Eternal Security_ says that the "outer darkness" is not hell, but loss of rewards, a temporary loss of rank in God's kingdom. In other words, a sort of Protestant purgatory.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 26, 2006)

To be fair, not all of the dispensationalists use public invitations and other similar methods. I think Chafer actually wrote against it. But there's no doubt that the combination of the two has been rather widespread.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Ryan,
> This whole doctrine arises from aberrant rivivalist views of sin, decisional regeneration and aberrant views of sanctification popularized by the Keswick Convention in the 19th Century. It's an amalgum of Finney, Wesley, and a guy named William E Boardman, with a little Darby mixed in for flavor, and you get heresy stew!
> 
> These guys are taking it farther, however, and becoming intranigent in their antinomianism, in the process denying the Gospel. All we can do is pray for them and try to articulate the Gospel in hopes that God will save them. I think there's a verse near the end of Jude that warns to use caution when trying to extricate various people from heretical beliefs.



I remember reading some excellent articles on the origins and development of the DTS view of sanctification in the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal.


----------



## turmeric (Aug 26, 2006)

I liked that article about the disjunction between justification and sanctification...used it in a paper I wrote on church history.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> See here and here for starters. Stanley in his book _Eternal Security_ says that the "outer darkness" is not hell, but loss of rewards, a temporary loss of rank in God's kingdom. In other words, a sort of Protestant purgatory.


 If this is the case, then I stand corrected, because I don't acquiesce with such statements.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 26, 2006)

Paul was an antinomian... Here is an ironic headline, by one of the _free gracers_ who has replied to me contemptuously.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 26, 2006)

Non-Lordship theologians are the intellectual heirs of the Nicolaitanes condemned in the book of Revelation (Rev. 2:6).


----------

