Disconnecting Proof of Faith from General Lifestyle

I've always wondered if saving faith is the sort of faith "that desires to follow after Christ." To follow Christ has come to mean in evangelicalism, as far as I understand it, a believer who is known for their faith in Jesus Christ because of a lifestyle that is consistent and visibly productive of righteous works.

Kev has been putting in a good deal of effort along with Mark Pierson on Kev's blog (On My Walk), in attempt to produce a dialogue with Lordship Salvation proponents concerning the meaning of saving faith. I'm really impressed with what they have thusfar produced. I highly recommend his latest two articles on this dialogue. These are excellent for introducing any reader who is new to this issue.

Kev's latest article is titled, "What is Faith? My Response To The LS Presentation."

Zane Hodges spoke in 2005 considering for what works are designed to give proof. His session is titled, "Once Again James 2." He is saying, if I understand rightly, that a general lifestyle of obedience has not a single mention in James 2. This is a five part video series. Parts 1 and 5 are the most direct - below.

JAMES 2:20-26

But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

I've always wondered if saving faith is the sort of faith that by nature desires to follow after Christ. This insight seems to disconnect the idea even further.

Thanks to Don Reiher, who has been diligent to make available many conference sessions of free grace teachings. There are many to access to date on YouTube.

My Introduction to Separationism

Legalism of Belief vs. Separationism

Before Zane Hodges coined the phrase "Theological Legalism" I was describing the same thing calling it "Legalism of Belief" here at my blog. Being someone who has been in and out of cults many times I got quickly tired with seeing the scriptures abused, through their use in endless variety of arrangements to show me that "Because you don't believe this, this, and this just as I do, you cannot have been saved!"

Well, thanks be to God that I am able to recognize that my salvation is not predicated upon precise or advanced doctrines that can only come through being a student of the Word for many years - though there are still many Christians who either believe or else act as if this is the case. What I am more interested in at this time, is to examine the same allegation made by those who might measure who is walking blameless before God by faith, through orthodox beliefs and confessions. Again, they would say to me, "Because you don't believe this, and this and this just as I do, you cannot be in right relationship with God!"

I'd like to think it is true, from the foundation I have so far in the Word, that believers who have fellowship with God by faith in the Spirit, also have rights to full fellowship with one another in the Body of Christ. What do you think? Would you place any restriction on fellowship with such an obedient believer?

Dr. Pickering, in his landmark text called, "Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church," did. On the grounds of one requirement if not more (I'm still grasping this as I share this in blog posts). He has found reasons to bar from fellowship other Christians who are walking in the Spirit. And he bases this upon whether they confess or teach orthodoxy.

Is Dr. Pickering justified in teaching this? I want to lay out his concepts and let readers conclude. I tentatively plan to post brief excerpts from his text on these topics:

Apostasy
First Separation
Second Separation
The Holiness of God
Ecumenism

And then as a summary, I would like to of course examine the scriptures to see what they say... without all the commentary.

Concluding Comments

I want to re-submit two comments of mine in a post last week at my blog: First; at this time I am convinced that there is a conservative Baptist disagreement in how seriously Christians should retreat from error. Therefore, it may be a free grace problem. I'm not sure if that's right but I'm hoping to explore if this might be the case.

The second comment I resubmit is that I have had a change of heart about my own "legalism of belief" perspective. There came a place for me to rescind, probably in conversations with Kev, that doctrines are designed for my sanctification, not my bondage. The world may use the Word of God for evil but I should not give off aires that His Truth is anything short of freedom to the child who is growing up in the LORD. I'm not bashful to admit that I went too far.

Also: (this is just me, but) it is interesting to note that a 298-page textbook can be written on a topic which includes... what, maybe 15 relevant scriptures, total? How can it be drawn out to fill so much space - I wonder this, then wonder the same thing of all the other texts which have done the same thing on the same short supply of biblical mandate. And then to think that some Baptists will set these books out as the markers for why they do what they do as they engage in ministry. But, I am learning, as I post through this. Which is most unlike the educated reader that my blog most fortunately takes now and then. I pay forward gratitude if or when they should contribute in explaining things if I would overlook something significant.

What manner of love is this?

There is a mix of emotions in me. I don't know what is wrong with me? I'm upset. But, even now I can't help but also rise up to encourage in sanctification, those who are the least like myself.

Somebody somewhere prayed that even by his passing, Zane Hodges would glorify Jesus Christ. Is His answer to that prayer dwelling in me?



ALL praise and glory to our Savior!

Thank you for my brothers and sisters, LORD

Thanksgiving is coming, quickly. As a rule when it comes time for the holidays, it is a strain for me. As of right now I don't know who will end up in my home. The family on my side is small and broken and dysfunctional. Chances are good that something will go awry.

I know what it feels like to be forsaken. There was a time in my life when I lived in my car. I have many stories that are worse, but my preference is to refrain on most occasions from "naming names" out of respect for those who are still with me.

I bought two doses of the meal and I am eager to cook it. Last year I had the same dilemma, though in the end I opened my home to a family from my church. I'm experiencing how the church is my family in a way the human family will never be. I feel a great deal of joy and love, with them, which is the fruit of the Spirit. Sure, they weren't there from my birth, on. But, I know that we are going to heaven to spend eternity with the LORD. What's more, we relate in a way no one else from this world understands. It is sweeter and better I believe, even if there was no dysfunction in my own human relations. I marvel at the natural closeness and unity in the soul the church experiences within itself.

Though I could feel loss, I really am pleased... to see the church replace my family on an important holiday.

































'Home for Thanksgiving' by Norman Rockwell



Today I feel a deep sadness over the passing of Professor Zane Hodges. He has gone "home" to God. I am affected, too much so to want to talk as usual about the gospel or about a recent passion for understanding fundamentalism. I feel that impulse from my unregenerate man, to dismiss the ones who have dismissed a fellow saint. But, I won't, because Christ is here, with us, the church. I cry tears, receiving this heart for the one of 100, all over again. There is no abandonment, any longer, though I might need to seek with devotion to find and restore.... He is with us; it is unmovable. You and I, the church, have become the family that will last forever. This family has replaced the natural one. There is no escaping it. We will share the LORD's table, "Thanksgiving," declaring in synch, thanks for grace which made us meet.

The passion remains, given by the kindness of Christ, for standing near the one who has been forsaken. I am more resolute upon this sad occasion, than ever. I will not stand by and watch my own brother, my flesh and blood in Christ, be dismissed. No matter which brother that might happen to be.

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.

Why "Theological Legalism" in Free Grace?

Why might there possibly be "theological legalism" in free grace circles?

I'll tell you why not; I am overlooking trifle things. It is not so much because:

1- people have a strict interpretation of an incredibly narrow construction of truth about the content of saving faith or the content of the gospel of salvation. (Of course this is something to make a big deal over because it is concerning the essentials of the faith.)

If you want to call this "legalism" it might or might not be so. If it is, it is a more narrow and less significant form, and I'm thinking of pinpointing a much larger element.

2- tensions have been increasing perhaps until as of late, and there has been a slow formation of theological camps. There are individuals on both sides who have a lot of scriptural might, who try and determine the course of others' convictions both within their own camp and across the free grace spectrum.

Even this, if you want to call it a form of legalism, is pretty common and normative. In the typical evangelical setting, influencing others with so heavy a hand is still considered by many to be a loving and therefore welcomed interaction.

Neither of these is what I am thinking of as the theological legalism within free grace.

When I think of theological legalism I am concerned about this one thing: its beginning premise. It is not as if no one in the world was ever getting saved in the midst of the Lordship Salvation era of evangelism. Free grace began because those who continue to hold fast "to what they heard in the beginning" as the Apostle John commands in his first epistle, are aware that the shift of the content of the gospel nevertheless reaps eternal damnation. Clarity had an unmistakeable and growing force of opposition, manifested in Lordship Salvation.

I ask this question: Is it true that there cannot be any error, therefore, in free grace soteriology, lest it fail its mission? We were created with a mission to protect the gospel message from error. I observe that we are indoctrinated by our own founding premise, that in order to preserve the gospel from any error, we must preserve it from any people who disagree.

I submit that a sustained future mission becomes less likely if it continues that we practice purging people.

Free grace began as a withstanding of the increasing error of people. As a withstanding of the error of certain teachers. As a withstanding of the error and confusion brought by a significant degree of theological error.

We started that engine righteously. But how important is it that we turn it off before it takes us further than we best go?

Are we not still looking for the same taxon of "enemy"? I think we are, unfortunately, still looking for "people" to take out of play, not quite able to prove if they are in opposition to the gospel. Is our mission forevermore to be after people; certain teachers? Is our mission to be ever increasingly seeking to eliminate people with theological error?

(For a bit of perspective, these questions are similar to those that must be asked of Christians who are legalists in their works; they don't want "sinners" to be acceptable and so they measure purity outwardly to give assurance, but assurance is never really attained.)

Where can this lead, ultimately?

All "gospel" "content" conversations aside, there must be a point even on the fundamental teachings of the faith, where a limit in detail to what is known and what is designed to be known, is perceived. Is there a limit of knowledge regarding the gospel? I don't know. Maybe Stegall and JP are right in saying the gospel and the content of saving faith can truly be known and proved without doubt from scripture. If that is true why are there so many Spirit-led free grace disciples that have not yet been convinced? This is a question that I believe deserves a great deal of respect and consideration. Maybe Rose is conversely correct; perhaps God has designed some things to maintain a small element of mystery. I myself do not know the answer of "limit" in the gospel-content debate.

I wonder about this: how long is that engine that we started up for good in the founding days, going to keep on working these same processes within? Is it not eventually leading us to impotence?

If we keep purging people, on what basis will we be doing so? On the basis of our own personal convictions. There is nothing wrong with that, excluding one thing: there is a great deal of variety in belief over the content of the gospel/saving faith. The end products? Three. Following on with this beginning premise to purge people who hold to error:

- we will all be purging one another. We have to; for any other gospel is "anathema."

- we will have no justification or freedom to publicly change position should we one day honestly be convinced differently.

- we will lose great minds and personalities to distant and broken fellowships.

May I submit some concepts for solution?

With a few exceptions, there needs be a distinction between purging error and purging people. Yes, we know there are a few "bad apples" on the fringe who cannot accept the terms of the most obvious and well established attributes of the content of the gospel. They may never change their mind. In the 1980s when we stood distinct with dissatisfaction with the worst of them, we essentially made this statement to the watching world:

"Do you know how important it is to preach the gospel with accuracy? Now that we have made so vocal a stand against those who preach error, and we have your attention, let's discuss together the content of saving faith and the content of the gospel."

In this sort of approach, you can see that the engine that was ignited by the obvious and unrepentant error of the extremists, has been intentionally, subsequently turned off. We no longer are seeking to purge people, only the error of the people caught up in this trend. Now that we have been established, shifting the focus away from people, and onto their error, allows for grace to be practiced. It allows space for people to ask questions. It permits grace for people to read for themselves. There is time to establish answers that are more than just what they were told, but what the scripture actually provides. This allows them to become teachers of free grace theology, in their own spheres of influence. It allows for the talents and work of those who have some disagreement over the gospel, to be used in whatever portion is helpful to advance the message that the gospel is an important matter for wholesale Evangelical Christianity to be self-motivated in studying.

Most importantly, this shift in emphasis off of people and onto discussing error alone, means that outsiders may no longer be derisive of our movement.

They might want to say, "Free grace began because they wanted to stop people from teaching error about the gospel, but they'll never achieve their goal because they can't unanimously prove what error is and what it is not."

But instead the mission and realization is this: "Free grace began because they wanted to stop the preaching of error in the presentation of the gospel, and everyday they are spurring their world and one another in fulfillment of that goal."

What do you think? Is there such a thing as "theological legalism"?

"Theological Legalism?"

I have the impression that the online climate is more capable of handling disagreement and opinions of a various sort, without communication shutting down as a result. So, let me finally take a crack, but just a small one.

There's a lot I don't know.

Here's what I do know:

"Theological legalism" is a uniquely evangelical phenomenon. This is simply because we are the only Christians who, by definition, believe that the bible is literal and true. In fact, the drive to preserve and defend the scriptural make-up of the gospel message, has caused legalism to manifest quite noticeably here in this free grace movement. But, I can tell you that any other band of evangelicals will have a much worse arrangement of theological chokings. 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. Isn't that horrible? But it's true!

If the entire apologetic construction has truly replaced the gospel message, you might understand why I say, "I hate it" (see next paragraph). "Lordship Salvation" is but one tiny manifestation (and a less-gross one I might add) of the phenomena of evangelicals adding much, much more to the message of the gospel, and the combinations have as much variety as there are denominations. That's one of the reasons why I always said I felt like I didn't belong amongst my own infallible-scripture-believing kind. Though, it does make me an awesome tool for annihilating the error of any message I happen to come across: I point them all back to the cross, and then sometimes they're done with me.

I hate "theological legalism." I've called it the "legalism of belief," and it is one part of two in what I call "the evangelical problem." The evangelical problem is the infiltrating deception to believe in self-righteousness by both what the law can measure, and othertimes a belief in the self-righteousness by the theology an infallible bible provides. Evangelicals preach righteousness in union with Christ by faith, alone. When they cling to either theology for righteousness, or, law for righteousness, they have unconsciously contradicted their reason for which they needed Christ.

The fact that I hate anything is a big clue to me that perhaps I'm not balanced, though you may have noticed I keep the hate under regulation, y'all. I came from the out, in. I came from experiencing works-legalism, and then watching evangelistic-legalism, toward the freedom of faith alone in Christ alone by the power of the Word of God. And I am so happy to have free grace friends who are like me. But: if I am "escaping" that means I am still not "resting" and this can only be done by examining the Word and correcting the error that is inherent when I am hating anything.

As for the gospel according to Stegall/Rosker, and the gospel according to JP, I believe it will take me some time to review for myself what I see many people in these circles have been already working on for a couple of years or so. But at this time I will continue to consider myself "crossless" in the "content of saving faith." I am also more or less crossless in my understanding of the gospel, for now, as well. Here is the reason, and, I haven't seen anyone address this topic, yet: the pre-eminence of faith, over all other requirements. Has anyone addressed this point, yet? As long as no one can theologically conquer their "gospel" and "content" debate over the theology of faith's sufficiency, I too will not likely be moved too far from where I am at this time.

Again, I know I don't know anything. But the theology of faith's pre-eminence is the reason why I have fallen in love with evangelistically engaging the non-mainstream Christian movements ("cults"), and it is also the only reason why I ended up free grace in soteriology before I knew of them. So I owe all my accomplishment to the scriptures, and I can't move till someone can meet me there.

Thanks for letting me be transparent.

P.S. A week or so ago, Ben told me that I am most likely being foolish by using my term of "legalism of belief" as interchangeable with Zane Hodges' term of "theological legalism." He's right, I don't know for sure what Hodges defines it as. Hodges may mean something I don't intend. I've been avoiding reading anything by Hodges for all these months even though I have some of his books sitting on my shelf. Why? Because I just get this feeling that I am so Z.H.T.N.G. (Zane Hodges The Next Generation). I think I naturally am even if without expertise, an additional independent witness that this alarm is necessary. However, Ben's right. It is foolish to avoid awareness, just because of that.

So, I've decided to begin reading Hodges' "Theological Legalism." And then, I'll share my assessment.