A forum for a community of people interested in discussing salvation in Jesus Christ by grace through faith
| August 26, 2008 Scholarly Journal Mentions “the marginal views…of GES” | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 24 2008, 10:38 PM (159 Views) | |
| lightninboy | Dec 24 2008, 10:38 PM Post #1 |
|
Scholarly Journal Mentions “the marginal views…of GES” Posted by: Bob_Wilkin Yesterday I received the June issue of Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. I’ve been a member of ETS since 1982 when I received my Th.M. degree. There is a fascinating review by Ardel Caneday of Northwestern College in Saint Paul of a book by Alan P. Stanley, Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? The Role of Works in Salvation in the Synoptic Gospel. Though Caneday finds minor fault with the way Stanley expressed himself in places, he is in essential agreement. Indeed he concludes, “Stanley’s book should become a standard resource for all who would accurately preach, teach, or write concerning salvation and works in the Synoptic Gospels” (p. 401). The sentence immediately before that, however, mentions GES, though not in a positive light: “The marginal views of those associated with the Grace Evangelical Society, historically related to Dallas Theological Seminary where Stanley wrote his disseration, seem to receive undue attention, especially in chapters 1 and 12″ (p. 401). The reviewer is speaking of Stanley’s attention to the writings of Jody Dillow, Zane Hodges, and me. Are our views marginal? Certainly in the scholarly world they are. To be mainstream today among evangelical scholars one must hold the party line, that Jesus taught salvation (eternal life/kingdom entrance) by works. Over 25 years ago I took a class on James by Zane Hodges. I remember his comment on James 4:4 that says, “friendship with the world is enmity with God.” He said, “If you wish to be recognized by the scholarly world as a serious Biblical scholar, then you will not be a friend of God.” He urged us to count the cost. We could be “marginalized” and written off as misguided souls, or we could be main stream and lauded as a world-class scholar. Losing God’s friendship, Zane said, was too high a price to pay to have the praise of men. It is encouraging to see GES mentioned in a leading scholarly journal, even if the comment is not a positive one. |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
![]() |
|
| lightninboy | Dec 24 2008, 10:46 PM Post #2 |
|
Comments: 1. jreitman Bob, I think part of our problem as those who embrace the “marginal views” of FG is the tendency to react to our own marginalization by retreating from the “marketplace” of ideas. I think Zane’s take on James 4:4 is overstated and only fosters such “retreat”—we are in the world even if not of it (read Jn 17:14 together with 17:21, 23, “…that the world may know…”). Paul himself was consistently marginalized but remained thoroughly engaged despite opposition (cf. Acts 13-27) and advised the church to remain engaged, even amid frank “immorality” in the world (cf. 1 Cor 5:10). And he did so with an irenic spirit that nevertheless did not compromise the truth (1 Cor 9:19-23). I wonder how we might more creatively engage the scholarly community which, in fact, in many respects remains one of our main “mission fields.” At Denver Seminary I have heard some of the most noted NT scholars vilify Zane and GES in general as not being comprised of true scholars, but neither were they truly “engaged.” The only way I can see of “witnessing” to these individuals and persuasions is to actively “tangle” with them in appropriate forums until it becomes obvious that we are “speaking to a fool according to his folly.” Is that a hopeless cause from your standpoint? August 27th, 2008 at 11:23 am 2. Bob_Wilkin I’d say there’s a difference between seeking the approval and acclaim of the scholarly world and seeking to win them. We definitely should seek to evangelize scholars. Just because someone has a doctorate in theology and teaches in a Bible college or seminary doesn’t mean they are born again. And even if they are, it doesn’t mean that still believe the message of grace. And it isn’t just when we present papers or talk one-on-one with scholars that we can engage them. Obviously, as this example with Dr. Ardel Caneday and Dr. Alan Stanley shows, they are reading what we write. So when we write books and newsletter and journal articles, we are witnessing to them. One of my favorite true-life accounts is of a Lordship Salvation pastor in the east who was given a copy of one of Zane Hodges’s books. The pastor prayed something like this, “Lord, I know this is garbage. But maybe there is something in here You want me to learn. Please guide me as I read.” The more he read, the more he began to wonder if Hodges might not be right. By the time he finished the book, the man was solidly Free Grace. Engage the scholarly world? Absolutely. Seek its friendship? No. August 28th, 2008 at 9:44 am 3. jreitman Appreciate your thoughtful response, Bob. I would go a bit further to explore how best to engage the scholarly community; personally, I am not satisfied with just waiting for random scholars to pick up a book(s) by Zane Hodges or Bob Wilkin and take it [them] seriously. I wonder if we have adequately explored the potential of truly collegial scholarly relationships to deflect or defer the prevailing casual dismissal of the FG message under the rubric of “poor scholarship” (note, e.g., the three times that DA Carson singles Zane out for “exegetical fallacies” in his book by that name)? Such “collegiality” is not the same as “friendship”; it is simply another “mission field” that entails accepting the known risks of mission and counting the cost (see my last paragraph, below). The truth is much more difficult to casually dismiss when people actually have to respond to the truth in person and be held accountable in their own environment. If the message of FG is as poorly represented in mainline seminaries (as it seems from a casual survey of mainline seminaries and my own experience), then who would most logically comprise the tangible “hands and feet of Christ” to these people. When I suggested that the scholarly community might be our main mission field, I think my heart aches as much or more for those who have truly believed but are “mired” in academia and—to a greater or lesser extent—deceived regarding the “truth once received.” What should be our responsibility toward those very influential scholars who are saved but obviously confused or unwittingly (maybe even “wittingly”) mired in much of the irrelevant (to God) culture and priorities that necessarily attend belonging to the scholarly community? It would obviously entail a good measure of professional “risk” to enter and persevere in truth within this scholarly “mission field” but no more risk than entering any other situation where the gospel has not been preached or is not accurately expounded. I would even go further to suggest that we could even benefit from the positive legitimate contributions that these scholars have made and continue to make to theology and hermeneutics. The FG “camp” has yet (in my view) to invade these fields in a substantive way that capitalizes on these legitimate developments yet not in any way compromising on gospel truth. August 29th, 2008 at 8:08 am 4. Erin What matters most is that people get saved and find the true light of the Gospel message that eternal life is a free gift paid for in full by the Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal security of the believer as distinct from discipleship and its rewards, and you all are doing a superb job of this here on GES. Keep up the great work To the glory of the LORD These people who want to muddle the waters with adherence to works are so confused. August 30th, 2008 at 8:08 pm 5. Erin Bob and all, do you think one of the main reasons why so many people including Christians make vicious attacks against the Biblical free grace/eternal security position, is because, in a sense, they think they have to somehow defend God’s holiness from abuse of His grace? September 3rd, 2008 at 8:08 am 6. jreitman Erin, I think you correctly explain part of the reason why people seem to “posture” so much in response to the message of FG, eternal security, and rewards: Free Grace is truly “hard” to understand—impossible, really, from a human vantage point. Within the academic arena, I think a further “confusion” develops when people have chosen to “camp” on a different (e.g., Calvinist, Arminian) view of Scriptural passages that—to us—transparently teach FG: Once one embraces such a view to “explain” these passages, while also holding to the consistency of God’s character, then the “theology” embraced tends to dictate the way one approaches other passages of Scripture: In order to maintain theological consistency, they feel compelled to read their theology into passages that aren’t nearly so transparent and risk getting trapped by our theological presuppositions in the name of “good scholarship.” However, I don’t think FG advocates like me are any less prone to that risk than those who feel the need to defend their own readings of those same passages against the FG readings, which they feel gives people the license to live their lives however they want. All I was saying in the last two sentences of my second response to Bob (above) is that FG theologians need to be just as alert to their own potential bias when approaching the less transparent passages of Scripture. I would then look at the “attacks” we receive as potentially helpful signals that prompt us to return to these texts and re-evaluate how we have taken them, which is the province of truly biblical scholarship. September 3rd, 2008 at 9:58 am 7. Erin That reminds me of something. I was having a discussion with a staunch Roman Catholic, he vehemently rejected any notion of eternal security of the saved person and insisted one must persevere to the end in good works and keeping rituals (aka Sacraments of the church) lest that person be found unworthy and go to Hell. I told him he was committing eisegesis, reading his Roman Catholic theory and teachings into the Scriptures. He then turned around and tried to accuse me of the same thing, that I am guilty of “Reading free grace theology into the Scriptures”. One of his arguments was “If you are right, how come the early church fathers don’t teach once saved always saved?” I was polite to him but the conversation was at a standstill. I insisted that when one honestly compares Scripture with Scripture and remains within the right context, the free grace position, ie the eternal security of the saints/eternal life by faith alone in Christ alone, is THE Scriptural position. But I also want to strive to be gentle and loving to people, and not “win the argument and lose the soul’, you know what I mean brother? September 5th, 2008 at 7:55 am 8. jreitman I love your passion for the lost, Erin. I too have been in dialogue with Roman Catholics and I am sensitive to your concerns about “losing the soul.” I find one of the best ways of furthering dialogue is to ask what they mean by using certain terms. For example, “save” can mean more than one thing, and not infrequently refers to “rewards” at the Bema or temporal deliverance from the consequences of sin; you might find that clarifying what he means by “saved” would help….and by suggesting that Scriptural references to loss of reward can “sound” like losing salvation in one sense yet mean it in an entirely different way that doesn’t jeopardize eternal security. Catholics typically interpret the Scriptural references to rewards being “burned” as part of the doctrine of purgatory, rather than distinguishing them from eternal destiny. The Fathers can also be ambiguous in their writing and some of them can be cited in support of Free Grace when the use of terms is further clarified. September 8th, 2008 at 11:08 am |
|
No I will not, No I will not Not go quietly | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · GES Blog · Next Topic » |






9:37 AM Jul 11