Romans 10:9-10 and Hodges-Wilkin Theology

[Mickie House]

So there I was in church and the guy is bringing the message. Our church is tied with the Cheap Grace Society, er, I mean the GES. Well, not really tied with but is friends with anyway.

We had a guest speaker (not a GES officer or anything) bring the message. He spoke on Romans 10:9-10. And here's what he said:

Basically, when it says salvation in vv. 9 and 10 and belief, that's referring to eternal life. But when it says salvation in conjunction with confession, it means 'salvation from enemies.'

Translation: The guy contradicts what the passage says or so it seems. He even references Bob Wilkin's website (www.faithalone.org) where I found Mr. Wilkin talking about it.


Is this common fare in so-called Free Grace circles?

I then read Zane Hodges' 'exegesis' of this passage in Absolutely Free. I think he'd flunk in seminary if he tried to say - basically - "It couldn't mean this because that would contradict faith alone."

Of course - he's never show me what passage says 'faith alone,' either. Dozens of passages taken in isolation can say whatever we want (or be twisted to say such). But it seems to me that if you're going to use a phrase coined by a person (in this case, Luther) you should use it to mean what he meant.

Hodges' treatment of this has him running around in circles. He actually teaches that some BELIEVERS will be cast into 'outer darkness' - whatever that's supposed to mean.

Is anybody familiar with this? Am I mis-reading the guy?

Thanx,

MH

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Milennial Exclusion proponents were on here in the past spreading the false doctrine of Christians being cast into outer darkness.

Fortunately, they have been banned.

The two salvation teaching carried among the Hodges, Wilkin, Dillow, Evans cronies is also a false doctrine.

 

[Mickie House]

Who Is Evans?

Milennial Exclusion proponents were on here in the past spreading the false doctrine of Christians being cast into outer darkness.

Fortunately, they have been banned.

The two salvation teaching carried among the Hodges, Wilkin, Dillow, Evans cronies is also a false doctrine.

Two questions (and thank you for your rapid reply)

1) So I am in fact understanding Hodges to say 'outer darkness' refers to believers when it does not? (Is that a fair summation?)

2) Who is Evans? Is that Tony Evans?

thanx,

MH

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Two questions (and thank you for your rapid reply)

1) So I am in fact understanding Hodges to say 'outer darkness' refers to believers when it does not? (Is that a fair summation?)

2) Who is Evans? Is that Tony Evans?

thanx,

MH

Hodges believes and teaches that believers who don't measure up to some certain standard will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ to be judged. If they are lacking, according to Hodges (and others) they will be cast into outer darkness and be excluded from reigning with Christ in the Milennial Kingdom.

Charles Stanley teaches this same heresy in his book Eternal Security.

They claim the Believer is still saved even though he or she is not in Christ's favor at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

After the Milennial Kingdom reign, according to these false teachers, the Believer will be brought out of outer darkness to live eternally with Christ in His Father's Kingdom.

When I referred to Evans, I was speaking of Lacy, not Tony.

Another of that Mercy Eliminated (my name for Milennial Exclusion) group is Joey Faust. He teaches this heretical docrine in his book, 'The Rod: Will God Spare It?'

 

[Jarthur001]

So there I was in church and the guy is bringing the message. Our church is tied with the Cheap Grace Society, er, I mean the GES. Well, not really tied with but is friends with anyway.

We had a guest speaker (not a GES officer or anything) bring the message. He spoke on Romans 10:9-10. And here's what he said:

Basically, when it says salvation in vv. 9 and 10 and belief, that's referring to eternal life. But when it says salvation in conjunction with confession, it means 'salvation from enemies.'

Translation: The guy contradicts what the passage says or so it seems. He even references Bob Wilkin's website (www.faithalone.org) where I found Mr. Wilkin talking about it.


Is this common fare in so-called Free Grace circles?

I then read Zane Hodges' 'exegesis' of this passage in Absolutely Free. I think he'd flunk in seminary if he tried to say - basically - "It couldn't mean this because that would contradict faith alone."

Of course - he's never show me what passage says 'faith alone,' either. Dozens of passages taken in isolation can say whatever we want (or be twisted to say such). But it seems to me that if you're going to use a phrase coined by a person (in this case, Luther) you should use it to mean what he meant.

Hodges' treatment of this has him running around in circles. He actually teaches that some BELIEVERS will be cast into 'outer darkness' - whatever that's supposed to mean.

Is anybody familiar with this? Am I mis-reading the guy?

Thanx,

MH

Hodges is a heretic

A Biblical Response To the Free Grace Movement Part 1

A Biblical Response To the Free Grace Movement Part 2

A Biblical Response To the Free Grace Movement Part 3

Repentance

"Free Grace Acts 17: 30-31"

"Free Grace" Matt 7:21-23

"Free Grace" Matt 7:21-23 part 2

Troubling Teachings by Zane Hodges

 

[Lou Martuneac]

REDEFINED Free Grace

Gentlemen:

Just a reminder to all- When you speak of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the GES please remember that the GES is a shrinking cell of theological extremists in the broader Free Grace community.

Many in the Free Grace camp have separated from Hodges, Wilkin and GES because of their mounting heretical views, primarily the “Crossless” gospel.

For details may I suggest reading my article, Is “RE-DEFINED” Free Grace Theology- FreeGrace Theology?


LM

 

[Mickie House]

Dear Lou

Gentlemen:

Just a reminder to all- When you speak of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the GES please remember that the GES is a shrinking cell of theological extremists in the broader Free Grace community.

Many in the Free Grace camp have separated from Hodges, Wilkin and GES because of their mounting heretical views, primarily the “Crossless” gospel.

For details may I suggest reading my article, Is “RE-DEFINED” Free Grace Theology- FreeGrace Theology?


LM

Noting your site:



What is/are the basic difference(s) between your position (is it FGA?) and the GES?

An exhaustive comparison is not necessary; I'm sure that I will learn more as I look deeper into the issue. But - just to stick with the point of this thread - do you see Romans 10:9-10 referring to two kinds of salvation in the same verse - which is what Wilkin does?

I read his article on that passage and kept shaking my head - indeed, without front-loading his investigation with the 'faith alone' dogma that he never really defines, he would never come to that conclusion.

Furthermore - am I wrong in that it seems that the GES has pigeonholed theology so much that anything that is not explicitly mentioned in John's gospel is considered extraneous?

(I'm trying to be fair here).


MH

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Noting your site:

What is/are the basic difference(s) between your position (is it FGA?) and the GES?

An exhaustive comparison is not necessary; I'm sure that I will learn more as I look deeper into the issue. But - just to stick with the point of this thread - do you see Romans 10:9-10 referring to two kinds of salvation in the same verse - which is what Wilkin does?

I read his article on that passage and kept shaking my head - indeed, without front-loading his investigation with the 'faith alone' dogma that he never really defines, he would never come to that conclusion.

Furthermore - am I wrong in that it seems that the GES has pigeonholed theology so much that anything that is not explicitly mentioned in John's gospel is considered extraneous?

(I'm trying to be fair here).


MH

MH:

My daughter is being married tomorrow, rehearsal in one hour, this will, therefore, be very brief, and the last comment for a while.

I am an Independent Fundamental Baptist- a member of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International and member of the Free Grace Alliance (FGA). FGA members, who in good conscience agreed to the FGA's Covenant, reject the “Crossless/Deityless” gospel of GES. That is the greatest divide and point of departure for many who once were in membership or tolerant of GES.

GES views any NT passage outside of John’s gospel as NOT part of the Gospel that must be believed to be born again. They look at Rom. 10:9-10; 1 Cor. 15:1-4, etc, then redefine and twist them to negate and rob them of their obvious meaning. And in the first place they abuse John’s Gospel to skew it in favor of Hodges’ reductionist “Crossless/Deityless” gospel heresy.

Bottom-line, Hodges, Wilkin, GES believe a lost man can be born again apart from knowing, understand or believing in the deity, death and/or resurrection of Christ. . This is why they rob Rom. 10:9-10 of its meaning.

They insist the lost does not have to know who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation. Just believe in the name Jesus, whoever you think he is, and you are saved. GES members like Antonio da Rosa (aka- Sock Puppet: fg me and Mr. Truth Detector) go so far as to say that the lost can openly reject the Lord’s deity and still be born again. Antonio Da Rosa says any misconception about Jesus, including open rejection of His deity, does not hinder the lost from being saved. They view that as something to deal with in follow up discipleship classes.

All of this flows from the egregious errors of Zane Hodges and is thoroughly documented. At my blog click on the Grace Family Journal link under Recommended Sites and find The Tragedy of the “Crossless” Gospel.


They assault the Lord’s titles “the Christ” & “Son of God” by saying these titles do NOT mean or imply His deity.

There are many articles at my blog by various writers exposing these things.


LM

 

[skypair]

Noting your site:



What is/are the basic difference(s) between your position (is it FGA?) and the GES?

An exhaustive comparison is not necessary; I'm sure that I will learn more as I look deeper into the issue. But - just to stick with the point of this thread - do you see Romans 10:9-10 referring to two kinds of salvation in the same verse - which is what Wilkin does?

I read his article on that passage and kept shaking my head - indeed, without front-loading his investigation with the 'faith alone' dogma that he never really defines, he would never come to that conclusion.

Furthermore - am I wrong in that it seems that the GES has pigeonholed theology so much that anything that is not explicitly mentioned in John's gospel is considered extraneous?

(I'm trying to be fair here).


MH

Mick, Welcome to BB. :wavey:

Your "Insight" serves you well. And why is it you attend your church?

I see you also do well in that you do not get wrapped up in the "doctrines of grace." You should enjoy your time here! :thumbs:

skypair

 

[Mickie House]

Well...

Mick, Welcome to BB. :wavey:

Your "Insight" serves you well. And why is it you attend your church?

I see you also do well in that you do not get wrapped up in the "doctrines of grace." You should enjoy your time here! :thumbs:

skypair

I didn't know anybody at my church taught any such nonsense.

It just seems to me that it is so obvious and the Zanies somehow figure it CANNOT mean exactly what it says.

 

[nodak]

Off topic, I know but

PLEASE (SHOUTING INTENDED) DO NOT USE THE TERM "CHEAP GRACE" FOR ANY THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM.

Whether you agree with another's position or not, the grace of God is never cheap. It cost my dear Savior His life.

Would you use the term "cheap crucifixion?" Or "cheap blood of Christ?"

Your system may be costly in terms of cost to the recipient while mine is free in regard of cost to me.

But neither system is "cheap" unless you figure the blood sacrifice of Jesus is NOT WORTH COUNTING AS COST.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Nodak -- what you say is RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

If Salvation cost money; I don't have enough $, £, or €.
If Salvation took smarts; I ain't gonna get saved-at.
If Salvation took degrees; I'm three PhDs short.
But Salvation took the precous Blood of Jesus; enough for 'whosoever will' accept it.
But Salvation is IN JESUS; where we are safe and secure.

Salvation is by WORKS - the completed works of Jesus

Romans 10:9 (Tyndale Bible):
For yf thou shalt knowledge wt thy mouth
that Iesus is the lorde
and shalt beleve with thyn hert
that God raysed him up from deeth
thou shalt be safe.​

I'm SAFE in 'Iesus the Lorde'