Bob Wilkin Declines to Debate the "Crossless" Gospel

[Lou Martuneac]

This morning Bob Wilkin posted his (not unexpected) decision to back out of the debate over the "Crossless" interpretation of the Gospel that he had been calling for since early this summer.

This came as no surpise. His desire for a debate was answered by Ron Shea who has the credentials to meet Bob.

In the opinion of some close to these men Wilkin lost his enthusiasm for an open debate as soon as he found that a man of Shea's caliber agreed to meet him. Wilkin's refusal to meet Ron had been expected from the time Shea posted his Open Challenge. The method and means of Wilkin's refusal was the only question.

How Ironic: On August 22, at the GES site, an article appeared titled, Bob Wilkin Offers to Debate GES Critic and is Turned Down

The follow up could now be titled, Bob Wilkin's Offer to Debate is Accepted and Bob Turns It Down

See: Bob Wilkin Declines Debate Challenge He Has Been Calling For


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I came to mind that it is entirely possible that Wilkin will not repost his refusal to debate Ron Shea. There had to have been a significant amount of damage and loss of credibilty resulting from the posting and sudden deletion of his article on Friday at the GES blog.

Wilkin did not post a simple statement declining to debate Shea, he attached two private e-mails between him and Shea. There is little doubt the e-mails were added by Wilkin in an attempt to discredit Shea and insulate him (Wilkin) from questions as to why he chose to back out of the debate he had been calling for since early this summer.

Wilkin may just drop out of sight on the "Crossless" gospel debate issue entirely. Maybe tomorrow (Monday) we will have something from Wilkin at the GES blog.


LM

 

[John of Japan]

Hi, Lou.

I hope you're doing well. We met elsewhere in cyberspace.

Please fill me in here. What is the "crossless gospel" debate? Out here on the mission fields of the world, we are sometimes cut off from the latest trends, and it helps us to know what is going on.

John R. Himes

 

[EdSutton]

I came to mind that it is entirely possible that Wilkin will not repost his refusal to debate Ron Shea. There had to have been a significant amount of damage and loss of credibilty resulting from the posting and sudden deletion of his article on Friday at the GES blog.

Wilkin did not post a simple statement declining to debate Shea, he attached two private e-mails between him and Shea. There is little doubt the e-mails were added by Wilkin in an attempt to discredit Shea and insulate him (Wilkin) from questions as to why he chose to back out of the debate he had been calling for since early this summer.

Wilkin may just drop out of sight on the "Crossless" gospel debate issue entirely. Maybe tomorrow (Monday) we will have something from Wilkin at the GES blog.


LM

As only a fairly dumb Central KY Baptist farmer, who personally knows Lou Martuneac and Ron Shea, to some degree, and Bob Wilkin, somewhat, as I have all interacted with all three, in person and/or over the phone, at my own expense, in the case of Bob Wilkin, more than once, in addition to some e-mails, except with Dr. Wilkin, all I can say is this is an interesting, as well as troubling situation, to say the very least.

I am not getting into this, at the moment, except to say that, IMO, private e-mails, between Christians, of whatever positions, have absolutely no place on public blogs, without the express written permission of the other to post such, should he or she agree that it is permissible to publish them. One may see the need to publish a 'summary' or quote a short sentence, to show the postion another takes, and refute it with Scripture, at times. But that is far different than posting an entire e-mail, especially one that has personal information or things that would be normally deemed to be in confidence. There is no place on the public screen for that, among Christians!

Ed

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Crossless & Deityless: GES

Hi, Lou.

I hope you're doing well. We met elsewhere in cyberspace.

Please fill me in here. What is the "crossless gospel" debate? Out here on the mission fields of the world, we are sometimes cut off from the latest trends, and it helps us to know what is going on.

John R. Himes

Hi John:

Good to see you here.

The issue is so comprehensive that I can't do it justice in a single post to you here. Below I am going to link you to my site where much of the debate is taking place. I will link you to a series of articles that will get you up to speed.

The GES position boils down to this: A lost person does not need to know, understand or believe anything about Jesus and what He did to provide salvation, but can still be born again only by expressing belief in the name Jesus for eternal life.

Even a JW, while clinging to his heretcal beiefs about Jesus Christ, can be born again by believing in the promsie of eternal life.

The "Crossless" men figure the deity and other questions can get sorted out after he gets saved by believing the promise. This teaching originated with Zane Hodgesm but Bob Wilkin, Jeremy Myers at GES also teach this.

That is bascially it, but they also say the Lord's titles, "Christ" and "Son of God" do not mean or imply Deity. Go to my blog and read on the "Crossless" gospel.


Lou

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Wilkin did it

One may see the need to publish a 'summary' or quote a short sentence, to show the postion another takes, and refute it with Scripture, at times. But that is far different than posting an entire e-mail, especially one that has personal information or things that would be normally deemed to be in confidence. There is no place on the public screen for that, among Christians!

Ed:

You would think men would not do that sort of thing, but it was done by Wilkin.

We'll see if he reposts his decision to back out of the debate he had been calling for. I suggested to him that he draft a genuine, heart-felt apology.

Lou

 

[John of Japan]

Hi John:

Good to see you here.

The issue is so comprehensive that I can't do it justice in a single post to you here. Below I am going to link you to my site where much of the debate is taking place. I will link you to a series of articles that will get you up to speed.

The GES position boils down to this: A lost person does not need to know, understand or believe anything about Jesus and what He did to provide salvation, but can still be born again only by expressing belief in the name Jesus for eternal life.

Even a JW, while clinging to his heretcal beiefs about Jesus Christ, can be born again by believing in the promsie of eternal life.

The "Crossless" men figure the deity and other questions can get sorted out after he gets saved by believing the promise. This teaching originated with Zane Hodgesm but Bob Wilkin, Jeremy Myers at GES also teach this.

That is bascially it, but they also say the Lord's titles, "Christ" and "Son of God" do not mean or imply Deity. Go to my blog and read on the "Crossless" gospel.


Lou

Thanks, Lou. I'll be reading your links and educating myself.

God bless.

John

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Thanks, Lou. I'll be reading your links and educating myself.

God bless.

John:

You can comment on what you read here and/or at my blog.

Yours faithfully,


Lou