tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113006.post4169170039167105898..comments2023-07-13T08:48:47.109-05:00Comments on The Race Set Before Us: Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? A Reviewabcanedayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671418539630398806noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113006.post-10819119891683924832008-05-22T23:08:00.000-05:002008-05-22T23:08:00.000-05:00Brother Caneday:Thank you for the kind reply. I w...Brother Caneday:<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the kind reply. I wrote to inform, but avoid the harsh rhetoric that often accompanies these debates.<BR/><BR/>The "<I>fracture,</I>" as I call it, in the FG community is very real. As you read you will be able to discern that the divide is over a serious disagreement over the Gospel message that must be believed for the reception of eternal life. <BR/><BR/>If I may, one more link: <B><I><A HREF="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/09/christ-under-siege_10.html" REL="nofollow">The "Christ" Under Siege</A></B></I>, with a link to part 2 of the series.<BR/><BR/>A partner of mine wrote this series. It reveals another disturbing theological view coming from the GES, Zane Hodges in particular.<BR/><BR/>I trust you will find the series informative and helpful.<BR/><BR/>KInd regards,<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113006.post-8295633087160869032008-05-22T09:33:00.000-05:002008-05-22T09:33:00.000-05:00Lou,Thank you for the helpful and informative upda...Lou,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the helpful and informative update on the fracture within the "Free grace" movement.<BR/><BR/>I had read a little bit about it, but I did not realize the depth or magnitude of this fracture.<BR/><BR/>I will follow through on doing more reading, beginning with the link you kindly provided.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again.abcanedayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671418539630398806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113006.post-18429242125777732112008-05-21T19:16:00.000-05:002008-05-21T19:16:00.000-05:00Greetings:I noted that you reference Free Grace th...Greetings:<BR/><BR/>I noted that you reference Free Grace theology and the GES.<BR/><BR/>I want to dispel the misnomer being spread by some Grace Evangelical Society (GES) members, especially Antonio da Rosa. The misnomer, and it is a major misnomer, is that GES is the voice of the Free Grace movement in general. <BR/><BR/>The GES has in fact become a shrinking cell of extremists that have fallen into the trap of Zane Hodges’ “<I>Crossless</I>” interpretation of the Gospel. This “contrary doctrine” of Hodges and Bob Wilkins’s “<I>Crossless/Deityless</I>” interpretation of the Gospel has been the cause of “<I>division and offences</I>” in the FG camp and churches. (<B>Rom. 16:17-18</B>).<BR/><BR/>The teachings of Hodges is what has come to be known and accurately defined as the <B>“<I>Crossless Gospel,” “ReDefined Free Grace Theology</I>” and the “<I>Promise Only Gospel</I>.”</B> It is largely because of GES’s heretical views of the Gospel; many men in the Free Grace community have separated from GES and do not want their name or ministry to be identified with the GES. <BR/><BR/>The Free Grace Alliance (FGA) was formed in part to become and is the new home of many men who have departed GES over the egregious errors coming from Hodges and Wilkin.<BR/><BR/>Exposure of the egregious errors of Hodges, Wilkin, Neimela, Myers, and lesser knowns like Antonio da Rosa has put the doctrinal views of GES theology on display. It is my hope and prayer the GES is soon to become totally isolated and outside any relevant discussion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. <BR/><BR/>May I share this article with your guests, <A HREF="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-re-defined-free-grace-theology-free.html" REL="nofollow">Is “<I><B>ReDefined” Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?</B></I></A><BR/><BR/>The article will help them understand that Hodges & Wilkin and especially Antonio da Rosa, do not speak for and do NOT represent the general population of men who identify themselves as members of the so-called Free Grace community. <BR/><BR/>The Free Grace community has been fractured, and it is a good fracture in that large numbers of FG men have withdrawn from GES over the Hodges/Wilkin “<I>Crossless</I>” interpretation of the Gospel.<BR/><BR/>Lord willing not one more unsuspecting believer will fall into the trap of the <I>Crossless</I> gospel.<BR/><BR/>Kind regards,<BR/><BR/><BR/>LM<BR/><BR/>PS: At my blog several contributors and I have written scores of article on both the Lordship Salvation and Crossless interpretations of the Gospel. Some may be of interst to you.Lou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113006.post-8557463127284084062008-04-26T22:51:00.000-05:002008-04-26T22:51:00.000-05:00According to 1 Corinthians 3:14-15, God’s workers ...According to 1 Corinthians 3:14-15, God’s workers receive a reward according to the quality of their work on the Day of Judgment, provided their work stands the test. If a worker’s work is burned up due to inferior quality, he himself is still saved, although he suffers loss. The work is building the church. 1 Corinthians 3:17 moves beyond the issue of inferior quality work to destroying the church, and the loss to the worker there is eternal life. To me the passage makes a distinction between the salvation of the worker and his reward.<BR/><BR/>I look forward to your comments.Runninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005256680053560473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113006.post-25125210428728976412008-03-26T20:26:00.000-05:002008-03-26T20:26:00.000-05:00Antonio,You asked, Do you for the most part agree ...Antonio,<BR/><BR/>You asked, <I>Do you for the most part agree wholeheartedly with the scholorship and arguments of the book?</I><BR/><BR/>Your question strikes me as somewhat odd, given the juxtaposition of <I>for the most part</I> and <I>wholeheartedly</I>. I'm not sure how to answer, since your question essentially oscillates between two questions: (1) <I>Do you for the most part agree with the scholorship and arguments of the book?</I> and (2) <I>Do you agree wholeheartedly with the scholorship and arguments of the book?</I><BR/><BR/>So, I will answer your question as best I can, in keeping with the review that I wrote.<BR/><BR/>I believe that Alan Stanley has done a good piece of scholarship by demonstrating the historical-theological understanding of the issues, by raising the necessary and pertinent questions, and by providing well-reasoned and well-demonstrated exegetical arguments to support the conclusions that he draws.<BR/><BR/>I do not agree with everything that Stanley says, just as I express in my review. Here and there he states matters in ways that I would not express them, but then to be fair, admittedly, I have been preaching and teaching and writing on these matters for many more years than Alan has. In the main, I concur with Stanley's conclusions. Then again, if you have read my book, <I>The Race Set Before Us</I>, you would realize this. After all, Alan draws frequently upon <I>The Race Set Before Us</I>, especially at the most critical junctures of his own argument.<BR/><BR/>I humbly and completely unashamedly believe, preach, teach, and write concerning the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in the same basic vein that Alan Stanley has endeavored to do in his book.<BR/><BR/>Blessings!<BR/><BR/>P.S. I notice that you identify yourself as a "free gracer." I'm always struck by the redundancy of the expression, "free grace." Grace, by its very essence is <I>free</I>. Grace cannot be more free than grace.abcanedayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671418539630398806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113006.post-85369032421343427272008-03-26T12:11:00.000-05:002008-03-26T12:11:00.000-05:00So I am wondering,Question:Do you for the most par...So I am wondering,<BR/><BR/>Question:<BR/><BR/>Do you for the most part agree wholeheartedly with the scholorship and arguments of the book?<BR/><BR/>Thanks in advance,<BR/><BR/>Antonio da RosaAntoniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383024070371150288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113006.post-5089763995154103982008-03-07T22:50:00.000-06:002008-03-07T22:50:00.000-06:00KP,You said a lot, but it's really difficult to fo...KP,<BR/><BR/>You said a lot, but it's really difficult to follow because you make assertions without arguments.<BR/><BR/>Consider your final statements. <I><B>God is love and God would never ask the impossible of us. He expects perfection, but the good news is that such status is a free gift when we obey the singular command to beleive.</I></B> <BR/><BR/>Do your statements not contradict one another? On the one hand you say, <I><B>God is love and God would never ask the impossible of us.</I></B> Then you tell us that God expects what is impossible from us. <I><B>He expects perfection. . . .</B></I><BR/><BR/>Indeed, God does require what we are incapable of doing, but as Augustine rightly said long ago, "O God, command what you will and give what you command."abcanedayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671418539630398806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113006.post-28823573623675038892008-03-06T23:10:00.000-06:002008-03-06T23:10:00.000-06:00So much confusion. No, Jesus did not teach salvat...So much confusion. No, Jesus did not teach salvation by works. That was the whole point of repentance. Especially regarding the Pharisees and their pursuit of self-righteouness. By changing their thinking they were pointed to Jesus Christ, the end of the law to obtain as a free gift what they were trying in vain to obtain through obedience to the law. The issue is perfection. To be reconciled to God requires that we are perfect. But, such status is a judicial status, that is, it is a judicial imputation we receive after we agree with the work of Jesus Christ. Another often overlooked issue is atonement. The suffering endured by Jesus Christ, while on the cross, was sufficient to satisfy God the Father's demand for justice regarding the penalty of all human sin, unlimited atonement. And, since by definition, salvation is not a process and not by works, when we do sin, God cannot impute the penalty of sin to the extent of spiritual death since such sin has previously been atoned for. "Forgiveness" when in the context of salvation is the equivalent of receiving a pardon. When we agree with or believe in God's report regarding the work of salvation of Jesus Christ we are pardoned, condemned no more, the equivalent of "forgiveness". It's important to note that salvation is not based on prayer to God asking him for forgivenenss. That is a blantant misapplication taken out of context. James 2 is an often abused chapter pertaining to faith and works. So many miss the whole point. This chapter was devoted to those saved by the law of liberty. They were commanded, as beleivers, to exhibit those qualities to encourage others to be pointed to Jesus Christ apart from works or the works of the law. So, the Christian "faith" without works appears dead to the unbeliever. Such "faith" had nothing to do with salvation. Works never validate salvation, never. In Romans, the Apostle Paul spoke of "receiving the atonment", an issue of faith. Such faith is not made legitimate by its fervor but rather by the object is beholds. If salvation from God's wrath, is conditioned upon our works as opposed to the singular command to believe, then no man can rest at night and have the peace of God that goes beyond human understanding. The condition of works to faith is insanity. God is love and God would never ask the impossible of us. He expects perfection, but the good news is that such status is a free gift when we obey the singular command to beleive.KPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01234550763844198907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113006.post-28463182504079178082008-02-14T16:56:00.000-06:002008-02-14T16:56:00.000-06:00Dan,The distinction that I draw between according ...Dan,<BR/><BR/>The distinction that I draw between <I>according to</I> and <I>on the basis of</I> concerns judgment, as in passages such as <A HREF="http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=greek&verseref=rom+2%3A6" REL="nofollow">Romans 2:6</A>. Paul says that God will render to each one κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. In my estimation, for us to read Paul's expression as "he will render to each on the basis of his deeds" is to say too much because the issue of judgment entails eternal life as <A HREF="http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=esv&verseref=rom+2" REL="nofollow">Romans 2:7-10</A> makes clear. Instead, when God judges us, he will render to each one "according to his deeds." The former translation of κατὰ poses a serious theological problem. The latter translation of κατὰ avoids the theological problem.<BR/><BR/>I take it that your second question refers to the following portion from Garlington's review. <I>“The Place of Our Works in Justification” (Chapter 7) is largely a discussion of Romans 2:13. Piper evokes the traditional category of the basis or ground of justification, in the present and at the end. As familiar as the approach is, methodologically it starts out on the wrong foot. The fact is that Paul hardly ever uses the language of “basis” or “ground.”</I><BR/><BR/>I think that John is picking up on things that I had said long ago concerning N. T. Wright's discussion of Romans 2. I have said that I think that Wright's expression is kind of sloppy. I pointed out that John Piper also used the same expression with regard to Romans 2. <BR/><BR/>It is conceivable that Don Garlington's criticism applies to me. I would, however, have a quibble or two concerning the point.abcanedayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671418539630398806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113006.post-141947940558669092008-02-14T16:14:00.000-06:002008-02-14T16:14:00.000-06:00Dr. Caneday,I know you explained this before, but ...Dr. Caneday,<BR/><BR/>I know you explained this before, but can you quickly draw out your distinction between deeds being the "basis for" or "according to" our final judgment. I always thought that people used the word,"basis", to mean closely to something like Christ' active obedience (him fulfilling the law for us) while the phrase ,"according to", means the fruits of faith which is the evidences that we are "born-again" , which do not have any direct connection to our final verdict.<BR/><BR/>In regards to Garlington's new review, what do you think about his criticism of Piper for introducing the word "basis" in his interpretation of Romans 2? Does this criticism apply to you when you make the distinction between "basis" and "according to"?<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>DanDan Chenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17220768836864625740noreply@blogger.com