Zane Hodges died last month. Justin Taylor said:
“I join Dr. Wallace in strongly disagreeing with many of Dr. Hodges's views, but it is important to remember that the man was a Christian, called by Jesus Christ, and should be honored in his death.”
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/11/zane-hodges-19332008.html
I disagree. He should not be honored in death. He was a heretic. And it wasn’t some abstruse point of heresy, but a very practical heresy. Hodges was a high priest of nominal Christianity and false assurance. Hodges was to Protestant theology what Tetzel was to Catholic theology.
Dan Wallace has testified to Hodges’ Christian character:
“Zane was a very honorable and ethical man. He was a man of prayer, and his life was one that was lived for Christ’s glory.”
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/11/zane-hodges-1933–2008/
That may well be the case. But that also exposes the gulf between Hodges’ doctrine and his private piety. For, according to Hodges, a Christian needn’t be ethical or honorable. Needn’t be a man of prayer. Needn’t live his life for Christ’s glory.
Hodges nailed the sign of Heaven to the gates of Hell—thereby misdirecting many unsuspecting souls from the pilgrim path to perdition’s path.
All too often, “once saved always saved” is synonymous with “not once saved, never saved.”
The best way to honor Hodges’ memory is to forget his life and work as quickly as possible.
WOW! ur my new hero. the way u state ur point of view is enlightening to say the least. thnk u for being honest and blunt, sumthin rarely seen.
ReplyDeleteviva triablogue!
"Hodges nailed the sign of Heaven to the gates of Hell—thereby misdirecting many unsuspecting souls from the pilgrim path to perdition’s path."
ReplyDeleteI don't think you really mean this.
The elect (those on the pilgrim path) will be saved and cannot be otherwise, despite any imperfections in those who delivered the Gospel to them. The reprobate will be damned no matter how pure of a Gospel is preached to them or how frequently they hear it.
Am I again misunderstanding?
MEANS to the ends James. Means to the ends...
ReplyDeleteOn the blog thread tribute by Prof. Dan Wallace to Prof. Zane Hodges I wrote in comment #5
ReplyDelete"Very Nice tribute.
Yet I’d have to side with John MacArthur over Zane Hodges in John MacArthur’s irenic tome, “The Gospel According to Jesus Christ.”"
Dr. Wallace then made a general response (which seems pointed more at me) in #6 with:
"Folks, this was not the place or time to discuss the merits of Hodges’ views on soteriology or textual criticism. I just wanted it to be a time in which we remembered one of God’s servants. I’ll be happy to start up a dialogue later about Hodges’ soteriological viewpoint. But not now."
I think if Steve or myself posted excerpts of this blog post "Not once saved, never saved" on the thread over at Reclaiming the Mind, it would get deleted.
I agree with you Steve, but do you think Zane is a genuine believer despite his antimonian heresy?
ReplyDeleteJAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete“I don't think you really mean this. __The elect (those on the pilgrim path) will be saved and cannot be otherwise, despite any imperfections in those who delivered the Gospel to them.”
Yes, I really mean this. The elect aren’t saved no matter what. It’s certain that the elect will be saved, but saving grace includes sanctification.
Hodges isn’t referring to mere “imperfections.”
Hodges reduces salvation to justification. And he reduces conversion to a one-time act of faith. For Hodges, you can die an impenitent unbeliever and still be saved.
That doesn’t begin to accurately describe what the Bible means by salvation. For one thing, it leaves out the work of the Holy Spirit.
Saving grace is subjective as well as objective. It’s not just something God does for us, but to us and in us.
LonelyBoy said...
ReplyDelete“I agree with you Steve, but do you think Zane is a genuine believer despite his antimonian heresy?”
His friends say he was a godly man, and I have no reason to challenge that. It illustrates my old adage that a good man can do more harm that a bad man.
As I was reading Dan Wallace's post on Zane Hodges, I was thinking the exact same thing.
ReplyDeleteIt was said that Pelagius was a very pious man. Yet, he was an evil heretic who preached a false gospel.
Hodges was a man who led many people into a false assurance that sent their souls straight to hell. He said, "Peace," when there was no peace. Let him be anathema.
Steve Hays: "I disagree. He should not be honored in death. He was a heretic. And it wasn’t some abstruse point of heresy, but a very practical heresy. Hodges was a high priest of nominal Christianity and false assurance. Hodges was to Protestant theology what Tetzel was to Catholic theology.
ReplyDeleteHodges nailed the sign of Heaven to the gates of Hell—thereby misdirecting many unsuspecting souls from the pilgrim path to perdition’s path."
Saint and Sinner: "Let him be anathema."
Not that either of you would care, but both of you would be hung and quartered by the Christian Charity Police for your remarks.
Please see the latest thread on Reclaiming the Mind about Zane Hodges: The Ultimate Task of Theology: An Observation from Final Farewells.
Excerpt: "But what I heard most of all was a man who desired for others to know Christ better.
As I contemplated these things, it struck me that this is indeed the ultimate task of theology, to know Christ better. Yes, engaging in the study of God is faith seeking understanding that will of course lead to exhaustive investigations of historical developments, hermeneutics, and doctrinal positioning. I think it is indeed serious business to understand God on His terms and I am personally committed to a lifelong in-depth learning of His character and attributes, His ultimate revelation in Christ and the reconciliation of His creation. History has indeed demonstrated that many have sought to misrepresent or distort this revelation and the salvific process defined for us in Scripture. Deviations do need to be addressed. But we can get so enmeshed in the process of debate that we begin to leave Christ out.
All the words, debates, arguments should point to Him, should help people to know Him and to know Him better. Perhaps if we find that our theological investigations and debates become more about winning arguments then pointing to Christ and presenting men complete in Him, then maybe those investigations should be superseded by silent moments of introspection."
Steve, Saint&Sinner... read the last part wrt your observations... "[They] should be superseded by silent moments of introspection."
In other words, halt dem mund.
;-)
This post illustrates another reason why I'm glad to be a part of Triablogue, since Steve says what nearly all Reformed people would say if they had spines. It's sad that so many people want to distort truth for the sake of some knee-jerk notion of "charity" (a charity which never seems to be extended to those who disagree with the "charitiable" people on any subject whatsoever).
ReplyDeleteWhile it is possible Hodges might now be in heaven going through Theology 101 and thinking "oops", his writings were beyond a doubt noting but a disgrace to the Church as a whole. They didn't suddenly improve simply because he died. If they were garbage before he died (and they were) they're garbage now too. His death doesn't change their value, nor does it put it "off limits" to point it out.
I wish more people were willing to acknowledge that reality doesn't change just because some people are offended by it.
Whatsamatter Peter? Tired of dealing with the Politically Correct "Charity" Pharisee who merely judges all arguments on the basis of his or her subjective criterion as to whether you're having an irenic, kind, and charitable discussion? Who will say something inane like, "Wow, they had such a nice, polite, and respectful disagreement while they were conversing with each other."
ReplyDeleteBecause it didn't matter whether anyone had the more substantially valid and persuasive argument. All that truly mattered to the Charity Pharisee was that the disagreement was civil. And don't you know Peter, being civil points people to the love of Christ.
Now smile big and wide and let this lesson of sugary sweet charity transform you for the better. Don't worry, you still have your cajones. You have not been emasculated, it's just been worked over to fit politically correct sensibilities.
;-)
Saint and sinner I disagree with you about Hodge he might in fact be a godly man just like Ryrie, he is no Pelagius.
ReplyDelete"Saint and sinner I disagree with you about Hodge he might in fact be a godly man just like Ryrie, he is no Pelagius."
ReplyDeleteHi LonelyBoy,
Thanks for keeping your comment irenic. [Note to the 'Charity Police': Truly "charitable" discussions are where people with strong opinions can disagree without hurling abuse at each other.]
Well, I am going to have to disagree with you. Pelagius was a godly man too. In fact, he started his heresy in an effort to stop the moral decline in the church of his day. Nevertheless, he still fell under the anathema of Galatians 1 and should be treated as an unbeliever.
Hodges' teaching was the exact opposite error but still equal in magnitude.
I also don't have too much respect for Ryrie either. His 'carnal Christian' Dispensational version of the once-saved-always-saved doctrine has no doubt led many professing Christians straight to hell. Instead, they should have been told that since they were not producing the fruit of the Spirit or desiring the things of God, then they were still in their sins and enemies of God.
Saint and Sinner Pelagius can be devout and pious but not "godly" to be godly means that there is the presence of an indwelling Spirit.
ReplyDelete