Teachings of Zane Hodges.

For a great synopsis of the heretical teachings of Zane Hodges, go here:

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/hodgeshp.htm

This site also includes the heretical teachings of Joseph Dillow, Robert Wilkin (Grace Evangelical Society) and J.D. Faust.

 

I'm not quite sure I've ever seen a joke quite go that far over someone's head. Ya'll get wound pretty tight up there in NY huh?


I DO NOT put on airs!!!

Lacy

 

I suppose you throw Charles Stanley into that group too? He's definately an "outer darkness for disobedient Christians" guy. You guys seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a heretic.

Lacy

 

If that was a joke, Lacy, you need more material.

 

Maybe if I got a snare drum and a cymbal and did the little du-dum-splash every time, folks would know when I was attempting humor.

lacy:smilewinkgrin:

 

Since the word heretic means 'a schismatic', and since this doctrine divides the body of Christ into those who enter the kingdom and those who do not,

then if you hold to and preach the same doctrine as Hodges, Dillow, Faust, and Wilkin.. and anyone else who holds to this false doctrine of Kingdom Exclusion are and is a heretic.

 

What a fine piece of reasoning. But what if we are right?

LAcy

 

I don't believe that Charles Stanley was mentioned in those articles--but if you would like, I can post some of Charles Stanley's heresies concerning Kingdom Exclusion--from his book "Eternal Security". But since this thread concerns Zane Hodges, I won't get into Charles Stanley teachings. Perhaps you can open another thread about Charles Stanley.

 

Since Kingdom Exclusion divides the body of Christ, and the Bible teaches us that Christ is not divided, I can say most assuredly that the Kingdom Exclusion is false through and through.

 

Well seeings as it is the Bible that teaches this doctrine both throughout the Old and New Testament I think we are in pretty safe hands.

But just to give you the benefit of the doubt can you show me in the OT that ALL Christians will make up the bride of Christ, because if it's taught in the NT it will be found in some form or fashion in the OT.

I'll look forward to your response.

 

The Old Testament did not testify of Christians. It testifies of Christ.

Christians cannot be found in the Old Testament.

Do you even know the Word of God in it's truth?

 

That's a funny statement coming from you who is the very person that says Christians can not be separated from Christ. But you really mean Christians can be separated from Christ as long as it speaks against your theology right?

Christians are in Christ. A part of His body. That's what you said. So how is it that the OT can speak of Christ, but it can't speak of Christians.

The OT speaks to the Person, Character and Work of Christ. And included in that is types, pictures, shadows of Christians.

That's just an absolute false statement and I don't know of very many Baptist (who wouldn't even agree with me) that would agree that you can't find Christians in the OT.

Not in Its entirety, but I'm learning as the Spirit leads! Thanks for asking :laugh:

 

I would suspect that this is why you got the initial response that you did; this was the sort of answer expected, no matter what evidence is presented.

I'm not familiar with Hodges' work, but I think it has been shown that what you are saying is suspect at best, so instead of presenting Scriptural evidence for what you are claiming, you trot out the "heretic" word, just as so many on this board do if you don't line up perfectly with their personal interpretation of Scripture.

 

The entire Old Testament nation of Israel is a type of both Christians and non-Christians within the kingdom of God, and of mankind in general.

They were not called Christians, to be sure, but they were typified as much as their Savior.

 

Okay, fellers, let's give the OP what he wants. A sane and intelligent discussion of the doctrines being promulgated by Zane Hodges, free of ad hominems and sarcastic asides either to the person in question, or to the person/s standing on the opposite podium.

Since his books are not online for anyone to browse and therefore comment on sanely, I have copied and pasted from one of the many websites on the internet opposed to his doctrines, as well as to a couple more gentlemen whom they describe as "brothers" who are walking worthy of the gospel albeit astray in some of their doctrines.

Here is the LINK to their website, titled "The Teachings of Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillow, Robert Wilkin (The Grace Evangelical Society) and J.D. Faust."

From their link, "The Gospel Under Siege", I take four for consideration. Let me post it separately for space.

 

Gospel Under Siege...cont'd

From this website:

Item No. 1 = I think we need to define what the "good works" are. Are the good works being charitable, religious, kind, considerate, and all those things that the world marks as standard behavior that separates good men from evil men ? If these are the good works meant, then I agree with Zane Hodges, because I have friends and acquaintances, and we all know people whom we would rather have as friends and guests in our dinner table over some people who call themselves "Christians" and sing in our churches, or shake our hands, and hug us. In other words, "worldly" good works is something not far from the capability of fallen, totally depraved man.

On the other hand, if by good works we mean a view of God which is filled with awe and wonder, respect and love, reverent fear and the consciousness of one's sinfulness vis-a-vis the absolute holiness of God, resulting in a relationship to fellow believers that reflects this view, then I disagree with Zane Hodges because only the quickened spirit is capable of these kinds of good works.

There are a lot more that can be said about this, but for now this is where I stop.

As to Item Number 2 = I will have to absolutely disagree with Zane Hodges and company. If one who is a child of God is brought by God into the company of His saints here on earth, professes to be a child of God, joins the local congregation, receives gospel instruction, and turn away and abandon his brethren to the point of openly denouncing the Savior he once professed to know and to have known him, then I point to this scriputre:

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. "

1 John 2:19.

Note that I am referring to going out of (1) the local church to which he belonged, and further (2) going out of Christendom in general.

This is far different from leaving, say, the so-so Baptist church to join the so-so Bible church (which is not Baptist) or the so-so full gospel church because of offenses in the former church/es. This one is an immature child of God, but a child of God nevertheless, assuming, of course, that his name is indeed known of God.

On the other hand, if he leaves so-so church and goes and becomes a Muslim, or goes and joins himself with Wicca, uhhhhmmmmm.....any oppositions ?

Item Number 3 - On the surface, I will have to disagree with Hodges here, but only because I myself hold the position that God is able to quicken and bring to repentance those whom He loves even at the last nanosecond of life. Eventually, we need to come to terms with the fact that while the Bible exhorts us to live a life worthy of the Name by which we are called, living that life does not result in salvation, but rather a manifestation of that grace that is in us.
Therefore, if someone who habitually lives in sin but never professed to know Christ, or never joined a church, or never referred to himself as a believer, and never received gospel instruction, dies, as far as my eyes can see, and as far as my limited perception goes, he died hell-bound, but, eventually and ultimately, it is God who knows.

However, if he received gospel instruction as a member of a gospel church, called himself Christian, professed to know Christ, and YET continually lived in sin, even practiced homosexuality, I will have my doubts about him, from the very beginning.

Item number 4 - The problem with this is that when the critic begins a sentence with, "in other words.....", then he is injecting his interpretation of what the other person is saying, which may very well not be what the other person is saying.

I agree with Hodges that it is possible that there will be no evidence (to us and our eyes) of this eternal life the child of God possesses, and that the grace of God is able (to me, it is the grace of God saved, not just "is able") to save a person, and not transform that person IF he receives no gospel instruction at all. In Romans, Paul laments the fact that those among Jewry who are of the true Israel (therefore the true children of promise) are still untransformed (unconverted, if you will) and caught up in the religion of Judaism, observing laws and rituals, having a zeal of God but not according to knowledge.

These were all children of God, the true Israel within Israel, but going about their ways establishing their own righteousnesses because they have no one preaching the gospel to them.

Okay, fire the ack-ack guns, boys.

 

I won't defend myself, but the sincerety of your post makes me believe that you deserve an explanation.

It was meant to be juvenile. It was pure 100% sarcasm. The tone of your OP set me off a bit. It seemed like you were putting on airs, and indirectly saying before you even get started that us "idiots" are not welcome here. This was just to be for you really really intelligent folks.

I am sorry for judging your heart. But, right or wrong, that was my first impression.

Lacy

 

Uh- with all respect, Lacy, J.Jump, and I all responded to this thread before Revmitchell. Just something to think about.

Ed

 

:laugh: :laugh: Not to shabby a retort, I admit!

But speaking of more material, "now thet ya' menshuned it," how about your own usual sign-off "trail line" of

or is that the foremost issue you happen to be concerned about? Just wonderin'. And I happen to be a "teetotaler" who has never even tasted beer, or most any other alcohol in 58 years, save what may have been in some medicines, and preferring to not even smell the stuff.
And since I don't have the wherewithall, imagination or talent to come up with any original poignant and/or witty sayings, maybe that is why I usually just sign off as -

Ed