Lou Martuneac on Zane Hodges
Folks, I'm asking you to check these links from Mr. Martuneac. I am going to do so as well. Feel free to leave a comment here if you like. - Mark Pierson
Mr. Martuneac writes, "OK, that said: Here is the link to my series on The Teaching of Zane Hodges.This is probably the most penetrating in the seriesFree Grace: Fractured by the “Crossless” GospelI would consider it a privilege if you were to visit and leave a comment, but it is not necessary. Be sure to click on the various links that are in or follow the articles. Especially see Wrapping the Series on Zane Hodges. This one has some of the links I referred to above."
Labels: Free Grace Theology
posted by mark pierson at 12:57 AM
22 Comments:
Mark:
Thanks for the mention. I may add a new article that I prepared as a post for another site.
Lou
July 07, 2007 10:58 AM
Mark,
Lou, thanks for your work.
Hodges seems to be calling all knowledge about salvation a requirement. FGT = "We mustn't talk about sin, repentance, Christology or the atonement because that is adding to the gospel."
Hogwash! A free ticket to a baseball game is worthless without knowledge on where the stadium is and what time the game starts. Would a person even desire to go unless he knew something about the game of baseball. Likewise, knowledge aids in evangelism and salvation by faith alone.
When a theological foundation is faulty, the building becomes more and more shaky with each additional floor.
A theology that holds that man initiates his own regeneration will inevitably adopt other errors as well.
July 07, 2007 12:08 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
July 07, 2007 4:10 PM
Jazzy:
Lou, thanks for your work.
Hodges seems to be calling all knowledge about salvation a requirement. FGT = "We mustn't talk about sin, repentance, Christology or the atonement because that is adding to the gospel."
This is Antonio in reply to a question I directed to him,
“To answer…the second part. Yes, I believe that a man can be born again who has not come to an understanding that Jesus died (was crucified) to pay the penalty for their sin.”
Hodges states that all one must believe is that Jesus is the Giver of eternal life, and that alone is enough to result in salvation. That gives the impression that anything else is an “addition” to the Gospel.
Hodges (Antonio) view calling on a lost man for belief in the death and resurrection of Christ an “addition” to the Gospel. I asked Antonio if telling a lost man he must believe Jesus died for his sins and rose again, constitutes in his mind that another/false gospel is being presented. I don’t recall if he ever addressed that question, he may have, but I don’t recall.
Hodges/Antonio eliminate repentance entirely from conversion, i.e. lost man need not repent in any way, not even a “change of mind,” and he can be saved only by believing Jesus gives eternal life.
They gut the force and clear mandate of 1 Cor. 15:3-4; Romans 10:9-10. For them a lost person does not need to acknowledge or even understand that Jesus died for their sins and rose again from the dead. This strange teaching is antithetical to the Scriptures particularly Romans 10:9-10.
They appear so fixated on John’s gospel I have told Antonio it appears they believe John’s gospel trumps the rest of Scripture on the matter of salvation.
Go to my site and read thorough the articles and threads. Feel free to copy and save whatever you want. I have dealt with “Crossless” gospel, in spite of Antonio’s protestations that I have not fully engaged him.
Hodges has been no a steady decline into deeper error over the years. This “Crossless” gospel is another step in that direction.
Antonio is still a relatively young man. I am hopeful he can get with some men who are balanced in their theology, and be recovered to an orthodox position on the Gospel.
LM
July 07, 2007 4:12 PM
Mark,
the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Lou Martuneac is no friend to Lordship Salvation nor Calvinism, lol.
July 07, 2007 4:26 PM
Antonio - at least Mr. Maruneac doesn't preach a crossless gospel, hereafter refered to on bluecollar blog as "The Crossless System", or TCS, in order to differentiate it from the REAL Free Grace Theology.
So there is the The Crossless System (TCS) and Free Grace Theology (FGT). On this blog there will always be that distinction. The pastor in Doug's link actually said things and took stands that even I could appreciate; and that's saying something. On the other hand I have seen nothing from TCS that I have any respect for.
Your "only book written expressly for the purpose of evangelism", the Gospel of John, presents Christ to the sin-loving, God-hating world as "The Word of God, indeed God" "The Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the World", "The Messiah", "The One about Whom Moses and the prophets wrote", "The King of Israel"... And this is before you get out of the first chapter. Hmm.
Yup, Mr. Martuneac and I disagree on Calvinism and LS, but, he has my respect on his preaching a gospel centered on the cross. 1 Cor. 2:2
July 07, 2007 5:03 PM
Oh, I forgot... LOL!
July 07, 2007 5:05 PM
On July 5 over at UnAshamed of Grace Kevl asked this of Antonio:
Does a sinner need to be aware and or agree with the fact they are a sinner in order to be saved? I'm asking because your presentation of the Gospel doesn't seem to include this and I'm curious to see how you will answer.
I am very interested to see how Antonio addresses this. I believe it may be a defining issue.
LM
July 07, 2007 7:06 PM
Hi Guys,
I guess I've been missing out on a great discussion here! Sorry about that. Once you break a habit (like blogging) it is hard to get back to it. Also, I'm finding myself rather busier this summer than I expected. Not excuses...I just think you deserve an explanation for my absence.
This debate on lordship and free grace, etc., has never made any sense to me at all. Over the last several weeks I've been outlining my current series on the Gospel of Mark. Anybody who thinks Jesus didn't call people to recognize his lordship in the kingdom of God has missed the obvious.
Grace is free by definition. It's not something God gives us; it's an attitude he adopts toward us!
Once he's adopted an attitude of grace toward us he calls us to obedience and service as well as recognition of the lordship of Jesus!
Dave Moorhead
July 08, 2007 12:21 AM
Don:
This debate on lordship and free grace, etc., has never made any sense to me at all.
They are two very different positions. Advocates from both positions have made very polarizing statements.
MacArthur on the one side of the theological pendulum swing, Hodges on the other end.
Both can't be right, neither one of them is right.
LM
July 08, 2007 10:46 AM
Lou, Mark 8:34-38 is hard for anybody outside the so called "Lordship" position to get around.
July 08, 2007 11:03 AM
Lou and Mark,
Mark has stated a position based on Scripture (Mark 8:34-38).
I think going directly to Scripture as he has done rather than what MacArthur or anyone else wrote is the way to get to the heart of any issue or doctrinal point.
IMO, regeneration, conversion (faith & repentance), justification, adoption, sanctification and glorification are issues that can be debated directly from Scripture much better than the term "lordship".
For example: If the definition of Lordship adds merit in any way to justification, then I agree with Lou that it is wrong. However, if the definition of Lordship is that regeneration produces a new person in Christ that responds to the power of the Holy Spirit and participates willingly through this power in the process of sanctification, then I would say this kind of Lordship is correct. The N.T. is full of exhortations for believers to participate more and more in their own sanctification.
Just my opinion.
July 08, 2007 3:25 PM
...issues that can be debated directly from Scripture much better than the term "lordship".
AMEN, Wayne!
On *any* issue!
July 08, 2007 4:56 PM
The terms "Lordship advocate" is such a emotionally "charged" term, I wonder if Free-Gracers use it just to create a biased aversion to it. Just a thought.
July 08, 2007 9:40 PM
JazzyCat,
Once again, I must say that Wayne needs to let you post more. Tell you what, just give him some catnip, and then you take over all the posting!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!
Actually, that was a very good post Wayne.
July 08, 2007 10:11 PM
"I think going directly to Scripture as he has done rather than what MacArthur or anyone else wrote is the way to get to the heart of any issue or doctrinal point.
IMO, regeneration, conversion (faith & repentance), justification, adoption, sanctification and glorification are issues that can be debated directly from Scripture much better than the term "lordship"."
This is why I appreciate and respect Wayne and/or Jazzy. Many of the terms and labels and their supposed 'meanings' simply convolute things, IMO.
In seeking to learn and gain knowledge, there's nothing inherently wrong with studying the works of others, but our primary source should be, of course, the Word of God. And let's not forget that it is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit who reveals Scriptural truth to our hearts.
This is probably why I've always been bothered by Antonio's use of the word, 'convinced' when talking about how people become saved. When they are convinced of the promises of God, etc. I don't believe Scripture shows that we're convinced of anything.
Sorry, I'm probably off topic here...
July 09, 2007 1:07 PM
Gayla, I have noticed that too many Calvinists resort to the Westminster, or even Calvin rather than the word. This practice sickens me. Let's just stick to the Word. If we can't see a doctrine held up there then it is not worth holding (like the "crossless gospel"), as the article by Martuneac shows.
July 09, 2007 1:23 PM
But Mark, no matter HOW MANY TIMES we reformed types put forth Scripture exegesis, we are CONTINUALLY held to confessions,or the Piper's/MacArthur's etc, by 'the other side.' The continual misprepresentations truly bother me.
July 09, 2007 1:31 PM
I've never understood the adherence to confessions. During my dad's visit, since he knows I'm 'into' (for lack of a better word) Reformed theology, and I gave him some books (Sproul, etc) while here, in his reading, he came across a reference to the Westminster Confession and asked what it said. I didn't know, but found it somewhere (in Grudem's Systematic Theology, I think). So I showed him that book. I still don't know what it says.
That said, I do think a knowledge of church history and the martyrs is sorely lacking in our church today and is needed. Mostly for an understanding of those who have walked before us, their faith unto death, and the price that was paid for us to have the Scriptures we so freely ignore today (I'm speaking of the average Christian in the US today).
As my dad and I were watching some DVD on how we got the Scriptures during his visit, I was taken aback by the reminder that the early church (say 33-300+ AD) didn't have their own Bibles or even hands on an actual epistle, but came to faith through oral witness. And they died in the Roman arenas, lit as candles by Nero, fed to lions and beheaded, etc. for what they had less access to than we today.
Sorry. Off track.
July 10, 2007 9:31 AM
I agree 100%, Susan. I haven't read the whole confession.
I haven't read John Calvin either. I do have Bible Doctrine, by Wayne Grudem, and that's been helpful on some things.
I have a sneakin' suspicion that every one of these men were wrong or misguided about one thing or another - as we all are.
July 10, 2007 10:35 AM
I have a sneakin' suspicion that every one of these men were wrong or misguided about one thing or another - as we all are.
Yet I suspect that most of these men who were wrong about one thing or the other - these men at the very least got the primary truth (the gospel) right. That distinction is, for the believer - the line in the sand. ;-)
Free grace teaches a truncated gospel that dresses up its own novel, soteriological omissions as antiquated truth, while at the same time demanding that genuine historic soteriology is in fact the fabrication of some new, malevolent system. I shudder to think that genuine believers can be hoodwinked by it.
July 10, 2007 1:21 PM
I agree Daniel.
July 10, 2007 2:24 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home