Here’s the Dedication from Back to Faith. I’m sure I don’t necessarily please anyone with this, but it is genuine from my appreciation for aspects of both of these influencial men. -Fred Lybrand
John MacArthur or Zane Hodges?
If you’ve been in the conversation about the gospel for the past twenty plus years, then this dedication will be the strangest thing you’ve ever seen.I’m dedicating this work to both of these men, and largely because they have both greatly influenced my own life. John MacArthur was my first introduction to understanding the Bible as the Word of God, taking it in a normal sense, and studying line-by-line and verse-by-verse. For two years, as a new Christian, I listen to John MacArthur through his tape lending library at a clip of six tapes a week. Roughly that means I listened to at least 275 of his sermons (I’m sure I had some breaks in there somewhere). When I chose to leave Law School and attend Dallas Theological Seminary, I knew only that I wanted to learn the Word; and, I wanted to learn it like MacArthur knew it. Even to this day, no matter how mistaken I may think he is, I still enjoy listening to him! When I left for seminary I wrote him a thank you letter for his huge influence on my life—but as he gets thousands of them, I never heard back. So, publically, thank you John MacArthur for your significant ministry in my life. John, you gave me a love for God’s Word, and I trust the Lord will reward you for it.
Zane Hodges was my first Greek teacher who turned into a friend and mentor over time. Zane scared me to death… though he was easily among the most gracious teachers I’ve ever known. Zane, who went to be with the Lord on November 23, 2008, was always very insightful and very patient in his teaching. I must confess, since I was so immersed in MacArthur’s view, I wasn’t really that fond of Zane Hodges! In time, however, I began to think through the issues for myself, and Zane offered me something strategic in my development as a Bible student and preacher; Zane Hodges really insisted on looking at the text for what it was saying, rather than what I felt I “needed” it to say. This ability to place the Word of God ahead of my theological bias is essential to the true exegete. So, publically, thank you Zane Hodges for your significant ministry in my life. Zane, you gave me love for being brave about looking for what the text itself really says, apart from defending my theology or my heroes from history. I trust the Lord rewards you as well.
So, how can I have heroes that have theologies at such odds? I think the answer is simple—we aren’t having conversations. On the one hand, I am thankful that we still live in a day and age where someone has a true conviction about something that is worth the battle; on the other hand, it would be great in our quest for truth if we were willing to have real conversations. Often we are fighting with our theology rather than with the scriptures and reason. It seems if we all understood our accountability as teachers, we would tread with a lighter step and a little more willingness to consider our own possible mistakes. I remain available to have conversations with anyone, especially those mentioned in this book; but, I really desire a conversation—not a lecture. May God grace us as we labor over such eternally important issues. May God grace us to say the ultimate words for entering through the door of humility, “I may be wrong.”
You can read more about Back to Faith at www.backtofaith.com
Just had same conversation with group, on those believers/preachers/writers etc,who inspire us yet we are not exactly in full agreement of what they are believing. with John Mc. being the example.– In the end it all ‘Pans’ out…
Christy,
I agree…except sometimes it doesn’t pan-out. I know there are a bunch of folks who have lost their assurance because of some of the ways in which MacArthur, Piper, Sproul, etc….say things sometimes. It is sad, but I worry at times that they might really believe some of these things they say.
Thanks,
Fred
Hi Fred
I appreciate you post. I’d like to try to make a connection between your comment to Christy on assurance and your statement in the last paragraph of your post about willingness to consider our own possible mistakes, the willingness to say “I may be wrong.”
I’ve been contemplating assurance for a long time and something occurred to me recently. It seems that, for some, their FG doctrine of assurance does not allow them to have the attitude you’re talking about. For example, they seem to indicate that an Arminian can never have assurance because he doesn’t believe that eternal life is necessarily eternal (i.e. rather, it can be lost). Therefore, an Arminian cannot be saved if he has always been an Arminian because assurance is of the essence of faith. Further, these FG people seem to indicate that faith is basically mathmatical, 100% certainty without any wavering or doubt.
So what happens when we come to discuss the warning passages in Hebrews? Personally, I have yet to find a position that is bulletproof. But a FG person such as I’ve described above cannot come to these passages objectively, in my opinion. How can they honestly say to themselves, “I need to listen to the opposition carefully to see if I’ve been wrong; I need to objectively let the text speak for itself and not be guided entirely by my own perception of the analogy of faith”? In doing so, they would no longer have faith or assurance according to their own definition.
Grant Osborne, in his book The Hermeneutical Spiral, states, “The best way to attain truth is to allow the opposing side to challenge our basic beliefs and then to seek to learn from it and be driven back to the text so that we might see anew what the Scripture really teaches” (pp. 293-294). I think that’s the basic attitude you’re talking about. But it seems to me that it does require some “doubt” (less than 100% certainty) about what we hold to.
Am I totally out to lunch or missing something big? I’m not trying to bash anyone, just trying to sort things out.
Hi David I can tell by your letter you study very deep,you have some good points. I have been studying the law the law of Moses,when you study this and realize everyone in Jesus day was under the law,and that law would not allow any other covenant to be taught. Jesus could not teach the new covenant it would have been a sin,that was Pauls job, John Macarthur,never understood this,he always tries to prove his points,by going back before the new covenant.
David,
I think what you are getting at is spot-on. In particular, I agree with how FG folks can miss the legitimate way in which an Arminian can be assured. Saying ‘they shouldn’t be assured’ is different than saying ‘they are not assured’, etc.
Dr. Hannah said something similar to Osborne when he told us that, “Your theology answers the most questions and raises the least problems.” What he meant was that we don’t tend to have perfect theological explanations, but we can get closer.
I personally don’t see a willingness to ‘be wrong’ has having within it doubt…though I must admit to you that some of my friends have accused me of such. I am sure, but I am open to the possibility that I’m wrong.
Here’s the word ‘doubt’ from TheFreeDictionary
v. doubt·ed, doubt·ing, doubts
v.tr.
1. To be undecided or skeptical about: began to doubt some accepted doctrines.
2. To tend to disbelieve; distrust: doubts politicians when they make sweeping statements.
3. To regard as unlikely: I doubt that we’ll arrive on time.
4. Archaic To suspect; fear.
v.intr.
To be undecided or skeptical.
n.
1. A lack of certainty that often leads to irresolution. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
2. A lack of trust.
3. A point about which one is uncertain or skeptical: reassured me by answering my doubts.
4. The condition of being unsettled or unresolved: an outcome still in doubt.
Idioms:
beyond/without doubt
Without question; certainly; definitely.
no doubt
1. Certainly.
2. Probably.
I do believe that ‘regarding as unlikely’ is a fair definition concerning the common way we use such terms. I really don’t doubt the core essentials of my views…in fact the nature of faith precludes such a thing (imagine regarding as unlikely what you believe).
The trick is when we get onto the doctrine of assurance…and so assurance as part of faith is dependent on the proposition itself (the gospel). In other words, believing Christ has saved me MUST have assurance as part of the proposition itself. Most of these other issues don’t have that kind of absolute conviction as part of them.
On the other hand, MacArthur, Piper, etc., don’t seem to be willing to consider and interact with the other views. We all can fall into this…so saying “I could be wrong” is a way I stay on track and open to greater clarity.
The second chapter of Back to Faith is a short course on logic…and I may be able to be shown my flaws in some of my reasoning, but I am very sure (but I could be wrong) that the basics totally defeat the unsupportable notion out there that we can look at one’s works and decisively conclude something about the same person’s eternal salvation.
Keep up the good fight!
Fred Lybrand