Wilson identifies the “Universal Propitiation” view of Hodges, Wilken, and GES as heresy. There are those who hold to this view that disagree with GES on the “Content of Saving Faith” (COSF) or know nothing about GES and their views. I think Wilson doesn’t understand that that view he calls “universal propitiation” makes a distinction between forensic forgiveness (which must be inseparable from the propitiation accomplished at the cross) and fellowship forgiveness. I think this is why Wilson is critical of Hodges, because Hodges believes in a forensic forgiveness of all sins for all people, and yet Hodges believed that one is not forgiven until they believe, but Hodges, and many others, believe this is fellowship forgiveness, not forensic forgiveness. This belief in “universal propitiation” seems common among free grace people, and even among those who don’t hold to GES’s COSF or know anything about them. If it is a heresy, it is very common among Free Grace people. I, however, believe that forensic remission of sins is not received until one believes in Christ as Savior from sin, so I am in alignment with Wilson and at odds with GES and many Free Grace people on that particular issue, but I don't believe it is a heresy.
Wilson is critical about GES’s understanding of Eternal Life as Eternal Security. Wilson is seeking to argue that if one has to understand eternal life as eternal security, then hardly anyone has been saved throughout time. One can be opposed to Hodges’ COSF, and yet believe that if one does not believe in eternal security when they believe the gospel, then they haven’t believed in the gospel correctly. I tend to agree with Wilson on this as well.
I have understood “eternal life” as primarily qualitative--a quality of life. Even though I probably have more books by Zane Hodges than any other author, and I used his commentaries when I taught through James, Hebrews, First John, and First Peter, I didn’t really discern that he was understanding the words “eternal life” as “eternal security.” I started to sense that though as I would listen to his discussion on “assurance is OF the essence of saving faith.” Though I do agree firmly that assurance is OF THE ESSENCE of saving faith, I may have not understood what he was saying, if he meant the assurance was in eternal security. I understood the assurance in the message to be believed was the promise of salvation or eternal life; that is, I am believing a promise from God, and that is the assurance; if I don't have the assurance of eternal life, then what have I believed in?
I would identify the content of John 3:16’s “should not perish but have everlasting life” as assurance. Now I have heard Dr. Wilkin say often that “everlasting life is everlasting,” and I took him to mean eternal security, but that’s where I didn’t quite agree with him, because I understood eternal life as primarily qualitative, though it is forever as well. I believe in eternal security, but I don’t think the primary meaning of everlasting/eternal life is eternal security.
Wilson said that everyone has everlasting life, because we live forever. I'm not aware of any Scripture that says everyone has everlasting life, for that terminology is used with reference to what one can have or does have who believe in Jesus. The contrast is made between perishing and eternal life. The unsaved may live in some form forever, but it is perishing, not everlasting life. I believe it's about a quality of life. So here again, I appear to be more in line with Wilson that GES on the meaning of "eternal/ everlasting life."
Concerning the COSF, I believe there are 2 pieces of information that are usually divided up as what one is to believe and what happens when one believes it. These two things are usually identified as the gospel and the response to the gospel, or maybe, intellectual assent and trust (the 2 of 3 aspects of faith such as Evangelist Larry Moyer promotes. The first aspect is knowledge.). I think Hodges was referring to these two things as the “two step.” I think Hodges combined these two pieces into one statement to be believed, to avoid the two-step or intellectual assent and trust approach. Of course, his COSF didn’t require certain content others believe should be necessary. His COSF was “cross-less,” “minimalist,” and it was “faith in faith,” or more of the response to but not the gospel itself.
Obviously, no one would just say to someone that Jesus died for your sins, was buried, and rose again, and then say nothing else about it, if they were seeking to evangelize. Obviously, not everyone is automatically saved, if an universal propitiation or an universal forensic forgiveness of sins (which Wilson rejects)—for one has to believe to be saved.
So does one have to believe they are saved by faith to be saved by faith? It kind of seems to me they do—even if you say it’s the response to and not the gospel. You can argue that it is not what saves you, but you do have to believe it. Jesus did tell the woman that her faith saved her, Luke 7:50: "Your faith has saved you, go in peace."
I think Hodges' COSF seeks to avoid the two-step (as in the two of the three so-called aspects of faith, being intellectual assent and trust): Hodges combines it into one step.
Wilson thinks one can be saved as long as they believe in Jesus as God and Savior, even though one also adds works for salvation. Interestingly, Wilson doesn't believe this is heresy, but just error. Were the Jews saved who said one had to be circumcised to be saved? They obviously didn’t believe in faith alone. But did they add circumcision from the beginning or later? If later, then they had “fallen from grace” (Gal 5.1-4). But if from the beginning, then I would be concerned, though since they were already Jews and circumcised, it probably wasn’t on their minds when they first believed.
I do think that one could not get to that COSF Hodges held to without some prior knowledge and belief. It is a hypothetical situation to say that if one could believe Hodges’ COSF, they would be saved, even though they didn’t know and believe the things that one typical does before that belief that results in salvation.
But there is going to still be debate on what content is pre-salvation-content and what is necessary salvation content. If one believes that Jesus is God and Savior from sin, are they saved, as Wilson believes, even though they weren’t thinking in the terms of Jesus bearing their sins on the cross to God’s satisfaction? Is the message of the cross prerequisite knowledge or final-content knowledge? Is the message of the cross essential or helpful knowledge? I think I need to read Wilson again to know exactly how the message of the cross fits in, because I mainly remember him saying one must believe in Jesus as God and Savior to be saved. Hodges believed Jesus was the guarantor of eternal life to all those who believed in him for it. Wilson pointed out that Hodges’ view didn’t require one to know that Jesus was God, but it did require the belief that eternal life is eternal security.
I already said that I believe eternal life is qualitative. I understand that to mean life with God: to have eternal life is to have a quality of life, which will be life with God. Since God is in view for all of this, since it is with reference to him, I either have eternal life or I don’t-- it seems that I must understand something as to why I don’t already have eternal life, naturally. Obviously, sin is the reason we don’t naturally have eternal life. I would understand that Jesus being savior from sin and being given eternal life as the same thing, ultimately. Sin brought death, the “wages of sin,” but through the forensic forgiveness of sins, I am given eternal life: I am made alive, born again, and I will be raised up. But if I believe in Jesus as Savior from sin or for eternal life, for me, it means the same thing. And though it would require prerequisite knowledge, to believe in who this Jesus is, who can make such a thing possible, I do have to believe in Jesus’ divine authority, whether he is God or the son of God. I think that believing Jesus is the Christ is to believe he is the son of God—Peter, Nathanial, Samaritans, and the High Priest understood this. Jesus had the authority to forgive sins, which the Pharisees said only God could do. I think that one would have to have some prerequisite knowledge and belief about who Christ was to believe his COSF. If one could hypothetically get to Hodges' COSF without that knowledge, I would wonder why or how one would believe it. It seems the authority would not be there, and the Divine connection and promise missing.
If one believed in Jesus as the son of God who saves from sin through his death and gives eternal life to those who believe in him for it, you have Wilson’s 2 primary beliefs about Jesus, as the Son of God and Savior from sin. You have a content that is somewhat similar to Hodges' but more fully acknowledges Jesus as the Son of God and combines the provision and the promise: Jesus is Savior from sin for those who believe in him for it.
