LOOKING TO PRAISE AND WORSHIP JESUS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. 18 No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son, or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known].

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Well, How About That?

There would be a thing or five we would not find agreement on, but hey, when their own peeps start busting on them, you know somethin' gotta be up!

See here for The Tragedy Of The Crossless Gospel Pt. 1. To see Pt. 2 just scroll down about two hares past a rabbit's hiney.



Blogger Susan said...

Ahem, gojira,
please forgive the correction, but ...
ain't that about two hares past a rabbit's hiney.

July 04, 2007 8:59 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Wow! The tradgety of the crossless gospel really was an eye-opener. It would appear that Hodges/Wilkin are NOT THE spokesperson's for FGT after all. That was powerful! thanks Douglas!

July 04, 2007 9:06 PM

Blogger Gojira said...

Well, all I can say is that there is discord in the Free Grace Papal Palace.

Susan.....oh goodness...here comes the GIRL brigade!


Uhm, yes, you would be exactly right. :-)

July 04, 2007 9:48 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

I reckin they's a new sheriff in Freegracedom!

July 04, 2007 9:58 PM

Blogger jazzycat said...

I have always wondered why Free Gracers are so intent in emphasizing the minimum knowledge and requirements needed for eternal life.

This article exposes a crossless gospel that is being promoted. It is a gospel that frowns on the mention of sin or repentance. It is a gospel that denies the power of regeneration. It is a gospel that denies the power of the Holy Spirit to be successful in sanctification. It is a gospel that denies a new spirit led nature.

It is no gospel at all for someone who simply accepts the precepts of this gospel. This gospel seems to be:
O.K. men go out there and tell people to accept through faith the promise of eternal life as a free gift by Jesus Christ and don’t mention anything about sin, repentance, discipleship, who Jesus is, prayer, bible study, or anything else, because that would be adding unnecessary baggage.

Sad indeed for someone believes this is all there is to being a Christian.

July 04, 2007 10:51 PM

Blogger Greg said...

There are some good and succinct thoughts by Sam Storms of Enjoying God ministries over at http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/the-lordship-salvation-debate

Thanks for the post

July 05, 2007 6:22 AM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Pastor Greg - Welcome! Thanks for sharing that article. I placed it in my links side-bar.

Mark Pierson

July 05, 2007 7:16 AM

Blogger mark pierson said...

To counter-act what is going on on another blog, read here....


July 05, 2007 7:31 AM

Blogger Rose~ said...

I have always wondered why Free Gracers are so intent in emphasizing the minimum knowledge and requirements needed for eternal life.

I had wondered that, too. But ... I asked them and they explained it pretty well.

This gospel seems to be:
O.K. men go out there and tell people to accept through faith the promise of eternal life as a free gift by Jesus Christ and don’t mention anything about sin, repentance, discipleship, who Jesus is, prayer, bible study, or anything else, because that would be adding unnecessary baggage.

This is wrong. This is not what they say they do, or I would be as unsupportive as you. For example, as I have read through Antonio's posts and comments lately, he says that the truths about Christ are what he preaches to show people that Christ is able to guarantee them eternal life.

...and don’t mention anything about sin, repentance, discipleship, who Jesus is, prayer, bible study, or anything else, because that would be adding unnecessary baggage.

This part right above is just not true, but I can see how, without thoroughly reading everything ...
(and who has time for that when you already don't like FG?)...
you might get that impression. It is not the case, however.

July 05, 2007 7:51 AM

Blogger Rose~ said...

BTW, Mark says:
It would appear that Hodges/Wilkin are NOT THE spokesperson's for FGT after all.

You don't visit RR anymore, do you? I had posted something on that very thing that surprised you.

July 05, 2007 7:59 AM

Blogger jazzycat said...

I am glad to hear you refute what Zane Hodges teaches. He teaches exactly what I stated in my earlier comment in his “desert island scenario.” Here is the link: http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000ii/Hodges.htm

In this article he (Hodges) denies knowledge about the cross is essential. Finally in his last paragraph (that Antonio quoted in his July 1 post on UOG) Hodges asserts the “desert island scenario” gospel as being the model and notes that the free grace movement should be embarrassed to make it any more complicated than that.

I am encouraged that you do not agree with the Hodges/Antonio minimum gospel presentation. However, I was not wrong in any of my assertions about this Free Grace Movement. Free Grace advocates cannot have it both ways. If this what the movement believes, then they cannot affirm it sometimes and deny it other times. They must boldly proclaim it as the gospel or completely deny it.

The quote I give in my comment is a bit satirical, but are basically what the Hodges gospel does not include. Read the article I linked by Hodges in his own words and show me where anything I said was untrue. Unlike pulling sentences from a Piper sermon to make a false assertion, I have taken Hodges own words and pointed out items that he believes are not essential to the gospel and in fact are embarrassed by them.

July 05, 2007 9:13 AM

Blogger jazzycat said...

I read your linked article. That is encouraging and I congratulate you for drawing a line and pointing out that you and others do not affirm everything Hodges teaches in a robot-like fashion.

Antonio, it seems does affirm the Hodges model as he commented the following in your article: "Yet in the final analysis, I am deeply persuaded that the framework Zane gives in consideration of a studied biblical position is superior in content and scholorly research than other views within FG. Furthermore, it is more consistent.

It is one thing to say that there are other views within FG; I heartily welcome them in the arena of Christian thought. It is something altogether different to say they are all of equal merit, which they are not."

July 05, 2007 9:32 AM

Blogger Gojira said...

"This is wrong."

Iwish I could agree with you Rose. That is exactly what they do. They operate by reductionism. Their bottomline is that anything beyond their bare minimium is unnecessary. They preach a gospel that will save noone based on a "faith" that is mere mental assent.

July 05, 2007 11:57 AM

Blogger Gojira said...


"To counter-act what is going on on another blog, read here...."

If we are thinking about the same blog, I would most heartily say that the quote is bogus. If a transcript of the sermon were available one would see that the given quote would have been peiced together from two paragraphs. Whether one would agree with the quote or not, it is plain to me that if the author of the post had actually listened to the first part of the sermon, he would know what was meant by the latter part. Saddly it would appear that the author did not grasp what was actually being taught.

July 05, 2007 12:04 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Douglas, I got this gist in that series you had us read that FGT is pretty much a product of, and is retained sowly by, Classic Dispensationalism. Did you get that out of it too? This was written by a pastor and long time member of the Grace Evangelical Society.

July 05, 2007 12:51 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Not only did the author have a bad take on "Lordship" but also Progressive Dispensationalism. He did not align himself with Covenant Theology... So, what are we left with?

July 05, 2007 1:09 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

I know that most will not read that series linked to in this post. Unfortunate. Because here is a man who was a long-time member of GES and he contends that Hodges/Wilkin have developed an entirely new system, one that established Free Gracers don't even recognize; nor would they care to.

Rose, I'll invite YOU to read that series that Doug Linked to in this post. Please, any and all, read it.

July 05, 2007 1:56 PM

Blogger Antonio said...


You may revel in FG disagreements. That is fine. Something is up. Distinctions are being made, and positions clarified. I, personally, think it is a good thing.

I wonder if you plead ignorance of the wrangling within Calvinism. I have read some supremely logical arguments from supralapsarians against their inconsistent infra-brothers. Oh boy, the vitriole contained in their treatments would take the wax and paint off your car.

And Doug,

as for the quote, this is your tactic always. Rather than come dialogue, you dismiss with the wave of your hand. The quote is easily verfied, as I gave the link to the audio. I wish you would come over and respond to the blatant works salvation of John Piper.

Do you know what's shameful? Is that this group of bloggers does not give the same consideration as the group that I am associated with.

Doug and Mark and sometimes Wayne like speaking as to FG. Danny, Matthew, Rose, and I come over here and respond. But do you all show the same consideration? I trow not. It is shameful.

Come over to UoG and defend your false prophet brother, John Piper, or forever hold your peace on the matter. He clearly states that believers come into judgment as opposed to John 5:24 and says that the evidence on the table will be good deeds. He states categorically that men and women will be judged according to their works to determine whether they end up in the lake of fire or are able to walk through the pearly gates.

I know that this doesn't shock you all who have learned to calm the dissonance and contradiction of a free salvation that costs you everything, but in light of the Apostle Paul who says that our salvation is "not according to works" it is a balatant return to Rome.

I want to tell you all that I am happy in responding to your questions, commenting on your posts, and dialoguing here on your blog.

But to remain on your own playground, playing by your own rules, in the comfort and safety of your numbers, seems shallow and cowardly.

Would love your comments on John Piper's quotation on UoG.


July 05, 2007 6:29 PM

Blogger only1way said...

Rose -- that is not what the word means -- it means that the individuals who believed were pre-ordained to eternal life -- they were chosen of God to be saved -- check Calvin on that.

July 05, 2007 6:34 PM

Blogger Gojira said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 05, 2007 7:07 PM

Blogger Gojira said...

What I posted to Antonio wasn't worth it.

July 05, 2007 7:24 PM

Blogger Susan said...

You are a wise man, Doug.

July 05, 2007 7:32 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Antonio, please interact with the link Doug provided in the post. Rose and Matthew, please do the same. I care about you all and want you to see the horrible error's of Hodges/Wilkin. Please part ways from their evil system, please.

July 05, 2007 7:40 PM

Blogger Gojira said...

"You are a wise man, Doug."

I get it from you!

You are alright Susan.

July 05, 2007 7:46 PM

Blogger Antonio said...

Doug, it is never worth it, is it?

You hit and run always. Nothing from any of your comments is ever substantive. I have the decency and consideration to spend considerable time dialoguing with the detractors of FG. I post thoughtful responses and never get much more than a peep from you guys.

To any impartial observer, that speaks volumes.

July 05, 2007 7:50 PM

Blogger Susan said...

Did someone say Peeps?

July 05, 2007 7:52 PM

Blogger Gojira said...

Yes, Antonio, I know.

July 05, 2007 7:55 PM

Blogger Gojira said...

"Did someone say Peeps?"


It's that GIRL thang again!

July 05, 2007 7:58 PM

Blogger Antonio said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 05, 2007 8:00 PM

Blogger Antonio said...

In the last week I have responded with significant posts, Mark. If you seriously care to consider them, please be my guest:

Must one understand Christ's death for sin to be born again?

Does Romans 10:9, 10 teach that one must understand Christ's resurrection in ADDITION to believing in Him for eternal life?

The Difference between the Gospel Message and the Offer of (Promise, invitation to receive) Eternal life

e Correct Use of the Gospel Message (and its Abuse)

A Look at the Pauline Gospel Message: 1 Cor 15:3ff

Reasons For the Clarification and Distinctions in the Couching of our Evangelism and the Content of Saving Faith

You Can't Believe Jesus and at the Same Time Not Be Certain You Are Eternally Secure

So Mark, read them over and cosider them. Respond if you like.


July 05, 2007 8:10 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Antonio, in the article that doug linked to the author brings up that the crossless gospel has saints suffering the wrath of God. He notes that Hodges/Wilkin have developed a system foriegn to established, long time Free Gracer's.

July 05, 2007 8:12 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Antonio, a cursory reading of what you have provided brings up at least two things:

Martuniac was right to point up that the basis of your position is that John trumps the rest of the Bible. I noticed that bobby grow took note of that too. You are arguing from a minority position. Of course from that position you will judge all others. You are operating on a completely different paradigm, on a completely different trajectory. You and yours will see things one way, and the rest (majority) of Christianity will see it differently. The author of Doug's link makes it seem that only Classic Dispensationalists can see the Free Grace position. He is right. This whole idea that a pre-cross message should differ from post-cross is silly. Reformed see that OT saints saw in prophecy the coming Redeemer, from Genesis 3:15 on. Were they able to fully understand all things about the coming Christ? No. 1 Peter 1:12. But the faith was there, being revealed in bits and pieces, Heb. 1:1-2. Salvation is in the Person of Christ, not promises, as the author in Doug's post points out.

July 05, 2007 8:28 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Antonio says,"I believe that in order to be saved, one must believe Jesus in His specific promises. The promises of Christ are found in verses such as John 3:16; 5:24; 6:35-40, 47; 10:28-29; 11:25-26. My position is that only those who believe in Jesus through His promise are saved."

Ah, but the Bible says otherwise:

"Look unto Me, and be saved", Isaiah 45:22. "Come unto Me... and I will give you rest" Matthew 11:28-29. Christ is my righteousness, 1 Cor. 1:30. Savation is in the Person of Christ, being in Him.

In the Gospel of John, the first chapter He is presented to the lost, rebellious, sin-loving, God-hating world as the Word of God, indeed, God.

July 05, 2007 9:21 PM

Blogger Gojira said...

Susan and Mark,

Please check your emails. Thanks.

July 05, 2007 10:01 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Antonio says, "Are we to make sure that our potential converts check off these further historical facts in their doctrinal check-list, that once adhered to brings eternal life?"

Talk about loaded questions! Your less than objective look at Romans 10:9-10, you be sure to read your minority views into this one. Look again at the Gospel of John, Christ is presented as "The Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world" the "baptiser with the Holy Spirit","Son of God", the "Messiah", "Him of Whom Moses and the Prophets wrote", "the King of Israel"... All this in "THE ONLY Evangelistic BOOK OF THE BIBLE"... THAT is presenting Christ, THE PERSON!

Behold how many times in Acts that the Apostles gave witness to the resurrection of Christ. Was not Paul scorned for this message, Acts 17:32.

July 05, 2007 10:02 PM

Blogger jazzycat said...

You comment....
Come over to UoG and defend your false prophet brother, John Piper, or forever hold your peace on the matter.

Why do you think I need to defend John Piper even if you are correct in your assessment of his teachings?

Today I posted an article at Jazzycat on Psalm 23 in which I said the following: "Note that the LORD alone is my shepherd and not political leaders, civil governments, or even church leaders such as popes, bishops, elders, and pastors. Church denominations or creeds are not my shepherd. The LORD and He alone is my Sheppard and I shall not want."

Does that sound like I have any responsibility to spend hours digging into material to defend Piper or anyone else against your charges?

I have quite a body of doctrinal writings on my site that are basic and meant to be readable by seekers and new Christians. I issued you and others a challenge about a year ago to show anything I have written in context that even hints at works playing any role in justification. I have not heard a peep back from you citing anything that I have written. (Peep was not my first choice in the previous sentence, but Susan and Doug get a kick out that word so I think I will work it in from time to time).

I have commented in the past few months from time to time at UOG and on a couple of occasions you have bailed out after I had made solid points in the thread directed to you. So, again, I have no responsibility to engage every post that you write and I have been critical of no one for not coming here.

I would not be honest if I did not admit that it is nice having a home field here at Bluecollar, but I will certainly go on the road as time allows.

July 05, 2007 10:19 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Antonio appeals to scripture here...

"1 Timothy 1:16
16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
Here is the clincher: "believe on Him for everlasting life."

Believe on Him. No mention of promises... It is BELIEVE ON HIM!!!
You'd better be presenting HIM in your gospel presentation. The promises are only part of the story.

July 05, 2007 10:20 PM

Blogger Gojira said...


You should answer for Wayne more often. That was an excellent post!

July 05, 2007 10:24 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

In case it gets deleted at UOG blog I'll cut and paste a comment I made there this morning. Here it is....

mark pierson said...
"He is a false prophet, subject to God's anathema,..."

You hold Piper up to the Hodges/Wilkin standard and declare him worthy of God's anathema?! That's quite a standard. I only hope you find me worthy of God's anathema too. Being judged by that standard and being found worthy of such a thing would only be a badge of honor for me. Please, please declare me a false prophet, subject to God's anathema.

July 06, 2007 3:58 AM

July 06, 2007 7:07 AM

Blogger jazzycat said...

Mark and Doug,
Good points. Antonio has to use and twist reformed writings to build a case against the true gospel. He cannot go straight to Scripture to do it.

When he does try to do it through Scripture it takes massive lengthy comments to explain the Hodges false gospel or either read much theology (that is not there) into short verses (John 6:47).

His tactic will always be to accuse you of not responding to his points unless you confirm them.

It is hard to refute a theology with a bad foundation on the 6th floor of the building. The FGT theological foundation is faulty and that requires much "spin" as each floor is added.

July 06, 2007 9:51 AM

Blogger Susan said...

I have not heard a peep back from you citing anything that I have written. (Peep was not my first choice in the previous sentence, but Susan and Doug get a kick out that word so I think I will work it in from time to time).

Thanks, Wayne!
I got a good laugh out of that.

July 06, 2007 10:03 AM

Blogger Susan said...

I noticed you actually changed "hairs" to "hares," you clever fella.
I guess we could well be accused of splitting hairs now, couldn't we? (Hey, sure beats splittin' hares!)

July 06, 2007 12:02 PM

Blogger only1way said...

To answer your 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. Antonio

Antonio, may I pose a question to you. It is not so much doctrinal as it is motivational. My question is , what ever motivates you to preach a gospel like this? It is like telling a husband that he can be married but, not to worry, he doesn't really need to love his wife. Or, it is akin to teaching a child that he/she can be part of a family but, rest assred, you need not obey your parents. Or, whisper to the employee you can be employed but don't worry about how well you perform. That is not yours to concern yourself with.

Antonio, why would you give people "the gospel" and, in essence, tell them not to fret because all it takes is an intellectual assent. No needto follow Christ, obey Christ or even know who Christ is. Antonio, what profit/satisfaction is there in preaching such a false gospel?

July 06, 2007 12:12 PM

Blogger Susan said...

Or, it is akin to teaching a child that he/she can be part of a family but, rest assured, you need not obey your parents.

John, an apt analogy. Good observation.

July 06, 2007 12:29 PM

Blogger Gojira said...


Thank you so very much for the email reply. Thank you.....

July 06, 2007 3:35 PM

Blogger Susan said...

Awww, shucks.
(kicks ground with big toe...)
'Tweren't nuthin'.
Gotta look after me Peeps.

July 06, 2007 6:39 PM

Blogger Susan said...

An' besides, gojira,
ya knows I just done tol' it like 'tis.

July 06, 2007 8:44 PM

Blogger Lou Martuneac said...

Hi Folks:

I have read this thread with interest. Some of you here have not seen eye-to-eye with me on other issues, but on this one, I think we are in general agreement. Please forgive the obvious plug to follow.

Some of you may be aware that at my site In Defense of the Gospel I have been addressing various issues in the doctrine of Zane Hodges for the better part of five weeks. The "Crossless" interpretation of the Gospel is, however, the most unusual and egregious error, and it has occupied most of my attention.

Since early June I have developed and posted 11 articles on this subject. I do provide links to The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel by Tom Stegall. However, I also link to several other sources that document the egregious errors of this unusual interpretation of the gospel advocated primarily by Zane Hodges, and defended here by Antonio.

My notes, comment and especially the links thoroughly document the errors of the “Crossless” gospel. The errors and extremes of the “Crossless” gospel are shocking and irrefutable. Many of you have made very astute and observant comments I this thread and I applaud your recognizing this strange teaching by Hodges.

Furthermore, I can tell you that from first hand, recent personal conversations I have had with several men in the Free Grace camp, they are disturbed by Hodges’ teachings, and in their opinion, Hodges definitely does not speak for many of them in the FG movement.

OK, that said: Here is the link to my series on The Teaching of Zane Hodges.

This is probably the most penetrating in the series
Free Grace: Fractured by the “Crossless” Gospel

I 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.

Take care,


July 06, 2007 10:34 PM


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home