Review of Hodges' "Hydra"

The following opinions belong to an uncertified woman, so, I warn readers to take the following not too influentially. I desire to speak reason, grace, and confirmation to free grace in general, and this is how I might do so....

In Zane Hodges' article titled, "Theological Legalism", Hodges enumerates three varieties of legalism: ecclesiastical, cultic, and commitment:

For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church was the most prominent “head” and still retains an extremely high profile. In Catholicism, eternal salvation is not obtained by simply believing in Jesus Christ for eternal life. Instead, adherence to the Church with its many requirements, both doctrinal and practical, is necessary. Catholicism is ecclesiastical legalism in a highly developed form. The cults are also typically legalistic (e.g., Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism, Jehovah’s Witnesses). Access to eternal happiness depends on adherence to whatever the cult prescribes. This may be called cultic legalism. Since at least the days of Theodore Beza (1519-1605 AD), another form of legalism has emerged which maintains that individuals are not eternally saved unless they are submissive to God’s commands or laws. This doctrine finds its most popular contemporary expression in what is now called Lordship salvation. For Lordship salvation theologians, there is no salvation through simple faith in Jesus for eternal life. Saving faith necessarily entails and includes full surrender and full commitment to God’s will. I call this form of legalism commitment legalism.

I understand his point, but in my thinking all legalism is simply ecclesiastical in variety. What is legalism? Legalism, whether theological or by works, is obedience meant to spare onesself of the judgment of men rather than the judgment of God:

"...but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." Rom. 2:29

In the following paragraph, Hodges defines Evangelical Christianity's error:

More recently another form of legalism —another Hydra head—has achieved a heightened profile. This new “head” maintains that eternal salvation is by “correct doctrinal conviction.” It is not enough to simply believe that Jesus Christ gives us eternal life when we believe in Him for that. We must also believe certain orthodox doctrines that go along with such belief. But these doctrines are not in themselves identical with believing in Jesus Christ for eternal life. Instead these beliefs form a kind of checklist that measures the validity of one’s faith. I call this form of legalism theological legalism. Basically it is salvation for the orthodox!

The diverted religions of the world command self-generated good works, to appease the righteousness required for salvation. Christianity was meant to stand in stark contrast to all of them by Jesus' own final declaration: "It is finished!"

If it is "truly humbling" as Dr. Charlie Bing recently said, to believe that righteousness is a gift by faith alone, what happens to that human tendency to remake religion into the idol of self-generated good works? Surely we are not so naive to think that the same stuff of humanity that has caught so many religionists in bondage, would not possibly catch us? Where is the one and only realm where Christians (who indeed believe that they are saved by the gift that comes by faith alone), left open to magnify self-generated righteousness? For a few, it is in obedience to the laws of God (for sanctification); yes, but, many Evangelicals know better. For them, theology is the remaining and final hold-out for self-righteousness.

Who better than the "theologically poor," or better yet the unsaved, to exact judgment upon as we strut around confidently wearing our robes and tassles of self-achievement? We love to sit at the table in the seats of honor, while evangelizing the lost. We stand up publicly in the courts of the LORD and say, "I thank you, God, that I am not like those who happen to be deceived about the truth." Consider the parallel:

The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted. Luke 18:11-14

No; legalism is not dead, yet.

Hodges makes much too quick a transition from talking of this age-old problem of theological bait-and-switch of the gospel of salvation in Christ. Forsaking a much needed pause he moved into addressing the Free Grace movement's situation; he begins his thought by saying, "more recently another form of legalism ... has achieved a heightened profile." This must be meant to address the history of doctrine in Protestant Christianity, because otherwise I can only conclude naivety on his part, as I said in a recent post:

"It begins with creeds and gets more complicated from there; in fact, the entire body of apologetic work done for each class of non-believer, has replaced the gospel of salvation."

Essentially, when those in the position to evangelize are faced with the theological gap of the person coming to faith in Christ, it is not enough to let them go till they believe more than 1 Cor. 15, more than the deity of Christ, more than the Trinity, more than the entire understanding of interplay of faith versus works, etc. etc. It is not okay, to the average Evangelical Christian, to let such a believer remain unconvinced of these truths.

That very uneasy attitude of those who are theologically poor, is a sign of no faith, and certainly no assurance that one indeed is saved by the good news of Christ, nor any assurance that they are being continually saved by a Spiritual system comprised of grace and truth.

Hodges continues,

Theological legalism seeks to co-opt Free Grace theology. Indeed, it masquerades as this kind of theology. But this claim is false. Grace is not given freely to the sinner who believes in Jesus for eternal life. Instead, grace is denied to that sinner unless he subscribes to the relevant theological propositions. A recent book entitled Getting the Gospel Wrong[1] prescribes five core essentials that one must believe to get eternal life. If a person fails to believe even one of the five, he has believed a gospel that cannot save him. But at this point obvious problems emerge. Who determines which theological doctrines are necessary for eternal salvation? The Bible, we are told. But where in the Bible?

According to Hodges, the gospel of salvation is as simple as trusting in Jesus for eternal life. It therefore leads a teacher convinced of such a specific position that anything more (but not less) is adding to the gospel of salvation. This cannot help but be described, as theological legalism. However: he is in my opinion, mistaken. It is only my opinion, and I warn you, it is uneducated; but as of this time, I agree with Greg Schliesmann; the other gospel passages cannot be marginalized. As Schleissmann says in his part two review of Hodges' article,

Hodges’s contention that the contents of saving faith must be fully defined in a single space imposes an extra-Biblical standard. ... The Bible does not tell us the contents of saving faith must be detailed in a single space nor does it tell us what space that is.

Again, I warn readers that this is an uneducated opinion, but I have said the same thing in a prior post:

I don't think it's wise to take sides. Because all of [the scriptures regarding the gospel of salvation] are used by God to cause people to believe. If we think it has to be one or the other, we pit our minds and understandings against a portion of scripture. And that is never good!

But why has Hodges made the assertion of legalism against the recent book titled, "Getting the Gospel Wrong," and against the proponents of 1 Cor. 15 (who assert that passage as the only gospel for salvation)?

One reason alone commands such a declaration to be made. Beginning in 2005, Hodges' teaching on the gospel of salvation was publicly proclaimed by others as "heretical," and so the implications of "legalism" in their alternate gospels was only logical to admit as well. No matter one's personal conviction on the content of the gospel of salvation, to turn to the left is heretical, and to turn to the right is legalism. This should not be a surprise.

Where is real "theological legalism" manifested in free grace theology? Is it in the full gospel? In the refined gospel? I give my opinion of the true place of "theological legalism" in my previous post: it resides in the free grace movement's beginning premise.

Getting beyond the issues of Free Grace, here Hodges explains the detriment made by theological legalism:

The error of theological legalism is extremely grave. It communicates to the unsaved person that he can only be saved if his doctrine is correct, rather than by simple faith in Christ. Moreover, it subverts the assurance of the saved person by making him wonder, “Did I believe enough doctrine to be truly saved?” Thus the effect of theological legalism is essentially the same as that of commitment legalism, i.e., of Lordship salvation. Both claim to teach salvation by faith alone, but both actually subvert the biblical gospel. Jesus always made Himself the object of our faith and offered eternal life freely to anyone who believed in Him, or in His name, for that.

(Here, I disregard Hodges' particular conviction on the gospel of salvation, and harness the larger point.)

The person who cannot rest in the face of serious theological error, or uneducation, subverts the sufficiency of the Spirit to cause salvation by faith alone in the content of the gospel, alone, regardless of our discussions of what that gospel content should be. It makes a burden out of the Word of God. It sometimes unnaturally forces newer believers to choose between the confidence and comfort they have by faith in the Son for their growth in godliness, and the clear corrections of truth being barraged before their eyes. It takes the focus off of Christ, and makes our minds and studies the center of our attention.

Overall I thought his article was excellent; I have personal disagreements and/or an undecided mind on some of his statements; but overall I am grateful to hear someone elucidate this matter.


[1] J.B. Hixson, Getting the Gospel Wrong: The Evangelical Crisis No One is Talking About, Foreward [sic] by Earl D. Radmacher, [n.p.], (Xulon Press, 2008). Pp. 405.