I too am a free grace adherrant. I have heard Zane speak many times, and am a friend of his, as well as Bob Wilkin. There has recently been a split in the movement, in which some, Zane and Bob, for example, now hold to a gospel that I have some issues with. But it goes even deeper than just the condition of faith alone. It has to do with the content of the faith as well, saying that someone today need not understand that Christ has died for them, or perhaps even understand that Jesus was God... I have a problem with that. I hope that I am just not understanding them accurately. Now they do not say that Christ's crucifixion and deity is not crucial, but that it is not
essential to salvivic faith. Still, that's kinda scary.
Now I do think that we need to qualify what they say, however. I have spoken with Zane and am confident about this, unless he has changed drastically since last we met a couple of years ago. But they would absolutely agree that if someone came to faith in Christ that they became a new creation at that moment - that they have been changed, becoming a child of God. I imagine that the distinction they would make is that
people may not see any evidence of the new creation - only God may see that, in some cases.
But they would definitely insist, as has been said, that works may not follow faith.
Bob and Zane also hesitate to use "trust" even as a synonym for "believe," which can lead one to assume that the faith they are referencing is indeed just mental assent. But they would not agree with such a dsecription. I will add a couple of things we should consider though:
1 - Calvin himself said that "assurance is of the essence of faith" and has expressed it as something more passive than is typically viewed in modern circles.
2 - Zane and Bob would most definitely not refer to their understanding of faith as "mere mental assent!" That is how it is expressed by others who oppose them.
3 - What they would emphasize, regarding works following faith, is that the moment a person believed he was regenerated. But
that we have no guarantee that works will follow... that has to do with discipleship.
From their perspective, this is an attempt to divorce grace from works in any manner. Some may not agree with what they say, but if we recognize what they are attempting to accomplish regarding the purity of the gospel, well... perhaps we'd have a bit more sympathy.
So I am not sure about this. It does appear that their faith is at least quite close to Sandemanianism, though why such labels should be a concern is beyond me. I know that Bob has debated James White on more than one occasion, I believe. But to just use labels as part of your debating technique to me is not really ethical - if that is what happened.
I could imagine Bob responding to James and saying that James White has a works variety of salvation, which would not be fair to James. (He didn't, I don't think - I'm just hypothesizing here) Why do I say it wouldn't be fair? Because James would never agree that he held to anything but "faith alone" - sola fide. Similarly, if Bob would never agree that his position is one of sandemanianism, then we should not label him as such. We can point out where we disagree with his theology, but such labeling is not profitable or fair, IMO, and should be avoided.
"That the bare death of Jesus Christ without a thought or deed on the part of man, is sufficient to present the chief of sinners spotless before God."
I think that they may very well agree with this statement. Though to be fair to them, we should just ask them. But you can look up what Zane wrote in a two-part article
(available at www.faithalone.org online) entitled
"How to Lead Someone to Christ" to see what he believes. I have an issue with some of the following from that article. Hopefully this will clarify his position, since he was really talking about the hypothetical, not real scenarios:
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.
and
But what about the cross of Christ? Is it not essential for a man to know about that in order to be saved? … (emphasis added here and throughout this text)
The disciples of Jesus were saved without knowledge of the death and resurrection of their Master. However, some people today would say, “But it’s different now that the cross is behind us. Now we have to believe in that as well.” Do we? Where does this idea come from? Certainly not from the Gospel of John. …
Let me repeat. Neither explicitly nor implicitly does the Gospel of John teach that a person must understand the cross to be saved. It just does not teach this. If we say that it does, we are reading something into the text and not reading something out of it!
What is my point? That we should not preach the cross of Christ to men? Not at all. I will make it emphatically clear a little later on that I think we should. Instead, I am arguing that we need to focus on the core issue in bringing men and women to faith and eternal life. What is that core issue?
Very simply it is this: We want people to believe that Jesus guarantees their eternal destiny. Of course, we would like them to believe a lot more than this, but this at least must be believed. Our failure to clearly define our goal in evangelism can have a negative or impeding effect on our efforts to lead people to simple faith in Christ.
But in conclusion,
could someone quote where Bob in a debate with James White referred to faith as assent to facts or mental assent? If we don't have such, then I don't think we should claim this to be his position.
Regarding "repentance," (METANOIA), Bob did his doctoral dissertation on this. But he has "changed his mind" about his position regarding repentance since then. He does not see it as a necessary part of the gospel message, nor does Zane. I personally see it as a necessary precursor to the gospel, as do many free gracers.
Oh, one last comment.
I would be interested in any quotes to the effect that Ryrie does not hold to the "trust" aspect of faith. I believe he does. He definitely does insist on the necessity of the cross in the preaching of the gospel and does refer to works following faith.
Thx,
FA
GeneMBridges said:
Frankly, Brother, I'm only making that statement based on what they have themselves stated about their own theology.
In the debate with Dr. James White, Bob Wilkin flatly denied that saving faith bears fruit and flatly stated that saving faith amounts to assent to a set of facts. I'm sorry you don't see that as "Sandemanian," but what, pray tell, would qualify them if their own confessions of their beliefs doesn't?
Protestant Christians (of the non-Sandemanian variety - which is the vast majority of Protestant Christendom I might add) see works as a
necessary evidence of genuine faith, something that
follows conversion and subsequently vindicates one as a true believer as opposed to a mere confessor of the faith.
Works function then, much like the fruit of a tree does, they reveal the underlying nature/root. Just as apples on a tree don't
make a tree an apple tree (rather they reveal it to be truly an apple tree) so too works (according to traditional Protestant theology) reveal whether one is truly born again or merely one who professes to know God while still unregenerate (cf. Titus 2:15-16).
In other words, according to traditional Protestant soteriology, works
follow genuine conversion/justification and they do not precede or cause/contribute to it.
Wilkins denies this. Zane Hodges has done so as well.
Bob Wilkin says there are 3 positions on eternal security in that camp. 2 of them, according to him, believe the believer can apostatize from the faith and still be considered "saved." The 3rd does not.
Wilkin admits to denying the third, because he has argued against the perseverance of the saints.
Wilkin flatly admits that repentance is not part of saving faith. He has done so openly for the public.
See here
