Zane Hodges

[RipponRedeaux]

I had made a comment about Zane Hodges a week or more ago and can't locate the thread. So I thought I'd give James Boice's thoughts on Hodges. This is from Boice's commentary on Romans, volume 3.

He says Hodges and those in his camp have affirmed that "(1) a person can be saved and eternally secure though he or she has a dying (or dead) faith, and (2) the person life can be saved even if he or she apostatizes, denying Jesus.

The first of these terrible and nearly unbelievable assertions comes as a result of Zane Hodges's attempt to deal with James 2:14-16, which distinguishes between a saving faith and a dead one. In Hodge's handling of this text, the passage is said to have nothing to do with spiritual salvation in the life to come but only with how one can preserve one's life now, here on earth.

According to Hodges, without works faith will wither. In fact, it can even die. 'A body dies when it loses the spirit which keeps it alive. In the same way, a person's faith dies when it loses the animating factor of good works.' Does that mean that salvation can be lost, then? That we must abandon the doctrine of eternal security? Not at all, according to this writer. The very fact that faith can die means that it was alive once, and on the basis of that once alive faith we can confidently say 'Once saved, always saved.' Writes Hodges, 'The dangers of a dying faith are real. But they do not include hell.' "

To be continued.

 

[rlvaughn]

I had made a comment about Zane Hodges a week or more ago and can't locate the thread....

Perhaps this is it.

 

[37818]

James 2: What Is a Dead Faith? – Zane Hodges Library

 

[Yeshua1]

I had made a comment about Zane Hodges a week or more ago and can't locate the thread. So I thought I'd give James Boice's thoughts on Hodges. This is from Boice's commentary on Romans, volume 3.

He says Hodges and those in his camp have affirmed that "(1) a person can be saved and eternally secure though he or she has a dying (or dead) faith, and (2) the person life can be saved even if he or she apostatizes, denying Jesus.

The first of these terrible and nearly unbelievable assertions comes as a result of Zane Hodges's attempt to deal with James 2:14-16, which distinguishes between a saving faith and a dead one. In Hodge's handling of this text, the passage is said to have nothing to do with spiritual salvation in the life to come but only with how one can preserve one's life now, here on earth.

According to Hodges, without works faith will wither. In fact, it can even die. 'A body dies when it loses the spirit which keeps it alive. In the same way, a person's faith dies when it loses the animating factor of good works.' Does that mean that salvation can be lost, then? That we must abandon the doctrine of eternal security? Not at all, according to this writer. The very fact that faith can die means that it was alive once, and on the basis of that once alive faith we can confidently say 'Once saved, always saved.' Writes Hodges, 'The dangers of a dying faith are real. But they do not include hell.' "

To be continued.

Neither of those points supported by scriptures though

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Continuing what Boice said about Hodges's teaching.

"That is terrible teaching. But here is a second terrible assertion, based on Hodges's handling of Hebrews 6:4-6. Hodges says that this is a description of real apostasy experienced by real Christians. That is, it is possible for Christians to 'fall away.' But we do not need to worry, since 'we should not construe ... 'falling away' here as though it meant the loss of eternal life.'

The bottom line of this pernicious exegesis is that a person can profess to believe in Christ early in life, live without works and thus see his or her faith wither, and at last die, so that the person no longer professes even the meager intellectual assent possessed at the beginning, and then can even deny Jesus as the divine Savior --that is, be utterly indistinguishable from a pagan, not only in external appearance but in internal conviction as well ---and still be a Christian, that is, be saved eternally.

It is inconceivable to me how anyone can seriously regard that as the Bible's teaching. Yet it is where the Dallas doctrine leads, even though not all who oppose 'Lordship salvation' follow Hodges's incredible extremes. That this is the end of the line should be ample warning to anyone that the teaching is unstable at the core." (p. 1203 of Boice's Romans commentary, Volume 3)

 

[agedman]

I would like to express my opinion, and such is to be taken as that.

Saving faith does not come from nor is it generated by humans. “Faith COMES by hearing, and hearing by the Word…”

For those “in Christ” Romans states “nothing can…”

So, how to view the falling away?

Perhaps a picture is seen when Paul rebukes the church saying, “This is why some of you sleep…”

There is a time when rewards are sacrificed, and that one, though a child, is removed from the enjoyments of the second heaven and remain for eternity on the second earth. Not in torment, but having no rank or privileges. Perhaps the last list of those allowed and not allowed into that second Heaven (Rev 22:14-15) pertain to this opinion.

Again, these are mere ramblings and no specific value or persuasions should be attached.

just stirring the pot.

 

[thomas15]

We are either saved by grace through faith and this is a gift of God or we are saved by grace through faith and some good works thus earning salvation.

 

[Dave G]

The bottom line of this pernicious exegesis is that a person can profess to believe in Christ early in life, live without works and thus see his or her faith wither, and at last die, so that the person no longer professes even the meager intellectual assent possessed at the beginning, and then can even deny Jesus as the divine Savior --that is, be utterly indistinguishable from a pagan, not only in external appearance but in internal conviction as well ---and still be a Christian, that is, be saved eternally.

I see this as describing something called, "Once Saved, Always Saved",
which I was taught as a very young believer from the age of 12.

It is inconceivable to me how anyone can seriously regard that as the Bible's teaching.

I once did, although I confess that the more I've studied the Scriptures over the years, the less and less I agreed with it until I dismissed it altogether.

I now hold to what some call "the perseverance of the saints", in that all who are Christ's will not only persevere in their faith because they are kept by the power of God ( 1 Peter 1:5 ), but that they do so because they are God's children, new creatures in Christ and which have the Spirit in them.
They will continue in the faith, they will walk in good works, and they will indeed continue to confess Him despite even terrible trials and tribulations in this life.

This differs from what I understand as "Lordship Salvation" in that a person does not "make Jesus the Lord of their lives" in order to become saved or to stay saved, but that they come to consider Him as Lord over their personal lives,
and will obey Him and His commands over the course of their lives, after all is said and done, because they are saved and they are born again.

In other words,
Perseverance is evidential, and not conditional.
If it never happens in the life of a professing believer, then they were never His to begin with.

If the above summary is accurate when it comes to Mr. Hodges thinking,
then what I see him missing is the Lord's examples ( and explanations to His disciples ) of the parables of the sower and the tares ( Matthew 13 is one passage )...

That many will "believe", but only some will bear true spiritual fruit;
That these "believers" will indeed be among those who are God's people and that they will grow together until the end....

and still hear the terrible words, "I never knew you".

 

[thomas15]

Is it not a matter of interest that in general those who have nothing nice to say about John MacArthur because he is a futurists applaud his dislike of Hodges over the issue of Lordship Salvation?

Question: Is it even possible for an individual who suffers from amil/post mil reformed covenant theology syndrome to ever experience theological whiplash?

 

[Marooncat79]

Is it not a matter of interest that in general those who have nothing nice to say about John MacArthur because he is a futurists applaud his dislike of Hodges over the issue of Lordship Salvation?

Question: Is it even possible for an individual who suffers from amil/post mil reformed covenant theology syndrome to ever experience theological whiplash?

Can you please expand on #1. I think I know what you mean but am unsure

what is whiplash here?

thanks

 

[thomas15]

Can you please expand on #1. I think I know what you mean but am unsure

what is whiplash here?

thanks

Zane Hodges was a professor at DTS and wrote much that many here would agree with. On the issue of free grace, the enemies of this belief forget all that they agree with him on and focus on that.

I remember as a relative new comer to theology the overall prevailing attitude over Hodges was that he was a bad man. I remember that while attending classes at Philadelphia College of Bible being told that it was a good investment to purchase The Bible Knowledge Commentary and since I had it and on inspection was surprised that Hodges was one of the contributors because I hardly knew anyone that held a high opinion of him.

Theological whiplash, a term I made up although I don't suppose I really invented it, is the result of finding out that someone you think is awesome and highly respected and the final word of issues of doctrine and then you find out they hold a well reasoned belief that goes against the prevailing reformed position and suddenly that individual falls out of your favor.

 

[thomas15]

Continuing what Boice said about Hodges's teaching.
.....................>

The bottom line of this pernicious exegesis is that a person can profess to believe in Christ early in life, live without works and thus see his or her faith wither, and at last die, so that the person no longer professes even the meager intellectual assent possessed at the beginning, and then can even deny Jesus as the divine Savior --that is, be utterly indistinguishable from a pagan, not only in external appearance but in internal conviction as well ---and still be a Christian, that is, be saved eternally.

It is inconceivable to me how anyone can seriously regard that as the Bible's teaching. Yet it is where the Dallas doctrine leads, even though not all who oppose 'Lordship salvation' follow Hodges's incredible extremes. That this is the end of the line should be ample warning to anyone that the teaching is unstable at the core." (p. 1203 of Boice's Romans commentary, Volume 3)

On the other hand, should there not be an equal amount of outrage over the idea that someone can have works in excess, receive the praise of reformed Presbyterians great and petite, and yet not have truly trusted the resurrected Christ? Is it not equally dangerous to put an emphasis on works? Did not the Scribes and Pharisees, who sat in Moses' seat, have works and thus received the praise of the reformed Presbyterians?

Romans 10:9 "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

 

[Yeshua1]

Continuing what Boice said about Hodges's teaching.

"That is terrible teaching. But here is a second terrible assertion, based on Hodges's handling of Hebrews 6:4-6. Hodges says that this is a description of real apostasy experienced by real Christians. That is, it is possible for Christians to 'fall away.' But we do not need to worry, since 'we should not construe ... 'falling away' here as though it meant the loss of eternal life.'

The bottom line of this pernicious exegesis is that a person can profess to believe in Christ early in life, live without works and thus see his or her faith wither, and at last die, so that the person no longer professes even the meager intellectual assent possessed at the beginning, and then can even deny Jesus as the divine Savior --that is, be utterly indistinguishable from a pagan, not only in external appearance but in internal conviction as well ---and still be a Christian, that is, be saved eternally.

It is inconceivable to me how anyone can seriously regard that as the Bible's teaching. Yet it is where the Dallas doctrine leads, even though not all who oppose 'Lordship salvation' follow Hodges's incredible extremes. That this is the end of the line should be ample warning to anyone that the teaching is unstable at the core." (p. 1203 of Boice's Romans commentary, Volume 3)

Think Boice view on salvation was much more biblical!

 

[Yeshua1]

Zane Hodges was a professor at DTS and wrote much that many here would agree with. On the issue of free grace, the enemies of this belief forget all that they agree with him on and focus on that.

I remember as a relative new comer to theology the overall prevailing attitude over Hodges was that he was a bad man. I remember that while attending classes at Philadelphia College of Bible being told that it was a good investment to purchase The Bible Knowledge Commentary and since I had it and on inspection was surprised that Hodges was one of the contributors because I hardly knew anyone that held a high opinion of him.

Theological whiplash, a term I made up although I don't suppose I really invented it, is the result of finding out that someone you think is awesome and highly respected and the final word of issues of doctrine and then you find out they hold a well reasoned belief that goes against the prevailing reformed position and suddenly that individual falls out of your favor.

Think that he meant well, but went too extreme on hnis free will grace, just as some in the Lordship side have gone too extreme in their views also!

 

[Van]

We are either saved by grace through faith and this is a gift of God or we are saved by grace through faith and some good works thus earning salvation.

Were we saved by grace through Christ's faithfulness and this gift is not of ourselves but from God?