Bob Wilkin Erases All Trace of "Crossless" Gospel Debate

Hi, Lou.

Knowing people, it wouldn't surprise me if this development indicated an internal dispute in the GES. Maybe some have objected to Wilkin and his doctrine and blunders. If this is true, we should see something on the website explaining all of this. We can only hope so.

I've followed the Lordship Salvation dispute from the start. In fact, I first heard of it when at BJU in 1971-1972, when I took a class from Arend Ten Pas, a man MacArthur referred to in his original tome. Therefore, this controversy saddens me, especially if Zane Hodges is weak in this area.

Still have to get your book about it, though. It's on my Amazon "wish list!" Thanks for your clear, scholarly stand in this area. :thumbs:

EDIT: I've just been reading on your website, and from the information there Hodges actually does teach a "crossless gospel." Very tragic.

 

Lou Martuneac:

I attempted to reply to your 'blog' site, but noted I had to create my own 'blog site' in order to be able to do so. As I am not interested in creating any 'blog site' of my own, I guess I can only reply to you on the pages of the BB. I would like to make one distinction. That is between "conciously denying the Deity of Christ" and being "unaware of the full import of the Deity of Christ". I think one can be saved, without being aware of all of what Deity entails. I believe I was, for one. I believed that Jesus was "the Son of God", without any question. However, in looking back, I'm not sure I really understood that Jesus was God, the Son, in those early days. And I strongly suspect most who are saved at an even much younger age than I, say around six, seven or eight, to be arbitrary, are probably not fully cognizant of this either. But they can well understand that Jesus died for their sins and rose again.

Jesus' own words have to be given some input here, as well, IMO. To my (granted, limited) knowledge, Jesus made no explicit verbal claims to being co-equal to God, the Father, in His Deity, during the earlier parts of His earthly ministry, at least prior to John 5:17, aside from the specific statement to the woman at the well in John 4:26. He claimed to be the Son of Man, He spoke of himself as the Son of God, and He claimed (or at least did not deny) that He was the Messiah, and He accepted the designation of John, the Baptizer as the Lamb of God. [The Apostle John's opening words do not count, in this, (John 1:1-18) for they were not spoken by Jesus himself, at least as of yet.] Even though Jesus' disciples "believed in Him" (Jo. 2:11), they did not fully "get it" until some time after the resurrection, even with Peter's announcement in Matt 16:16 and John 6:69. However, the offer of eternal life had previously been given (and accepted, apparently) to those who 'believed in/on Him (or His name) including such as attenders at the wedding in Cana, those at Jerusalem during the Passover and feast, Nicodemus (apparently at this time), the disciples, the woman and many others in Syychar, and those who were fed by the seashore in Capernaum, and those who heard in the synagogue at Capernaum. (John 1:12; 2:11, 23; 3:14-18, 31-36; 4:39-42, 45, 53)

Did all of them understand? Apparently not. Did all of them believe? Apparently so. Were all of them thus 'saved" according to the words of Jesus? As far as I can read and understand it, the answer is a resounding "YES!"

Let's make sure we are, in fact, presenting the gospel, and not, instead, trying to teach a course in Systematic Theology, before one can be saved. At least that's my opinion.

FTR, I stayed in the book of John, here basically, because it was easier than trying to look through all the Gospels, simultaneously. Perhaps there is something oin another gospel that would show that Jesus did, in fact, make a specific claim to beng Deity, somewhat earlier. I simply do not know this answer to this one, and as I wanted to get this out tonight, did not have the time to go through the other three Gospels.

Bedtime a couple of hours ago. G'nite, all.

Ed

 

Ed Sutton,

I believe Jesus did make a verbal statement claiming to be co-equal with God when He said "I and my Father are one."

 

Thanks, Lou.

I'm going to be pondering Scripturally whether or not a conscious knowledge of the deity of Christ is required for salvation. We are to become like children to believe, and I don't know that little children can understand the deity of Christ. (I didn't at age 4.) Having said that, Antonio Da Rosa is dead wrong to say, as quoted on your blog, that if you do not believe in Christ's deity you can be saved.

I will also say that I agree that the title "Christ" includes His deity. Even if first century Jews did not believe that Messiah would be deity (and there is evidence for that), it seems clear that Christ Himself claimed deity and meant the terms "Son of God" and "Christ" to indicate deity. Again, based on 2 John 9-11 I agree completely that one cannot reject the doctrine of Christ's deity and be saved.

Having said that, I agree with EdSutton that it goes too far to say the GES position attacks the deity of Christ.

One more observation: I see this wrong theology as a fruit of the ecumenical movement, though I don't know how ecumenical Hodges and friends are. New Evangelicalism, in their desire for Christian unity, went quite a ways down a slippery slope in their proclamation of many heretical groups as Christian: Catholics, liberals, etc.

 

With all respect, standingfirminChrist, if you read my previous post, as opposed to just skimming over it, and then get back with me, I will then comment on your comment here, if you do not want to take back your above comment, with its implictions about what I said.

Ed

 

I don't believe I said this in these words, at all. Your "agreement" (and above conclusion) may or may not be correct, but I would have to think this through a bit, before commenting on it, and that would take more time than I have available, at this minute. Sorry.

Let me add that I am an associate member of the GES, and as such, am pretty much in total agreement with the stated doctrinal stance, but neither Dr. Robert Wilkin, Mr. Zane Hodges, Mr. Antonio da Rosa, nor any other current or past member of the GES (or any other individual or group, for that matter, up to and including my own home church) can speak for me, as to what I believe.

Here are the links to the doctrinal position of the GES, as well as the Affirmation of Beliefs.

http://www.faithalone.org/about/DoctStmt.html

http://www.faithalone.org/about/beliefs.html

Ed

 

All right, Brother Ed, I'll wait to see which way your wind blows before setting my sail on agreeing with you.

Thanks. I'll check the links out when I get time.

 

Thanks Lou. That was informative.

 

Thanks, Lou, I'll be looking at it. My view is very close to that of my grandfather, even after much personal study and thought. I'm sure you are well aware of what Granddad taught. It was certainly not the "no repentance needed" view.

 

Lou, to my knowledge he didn't write any books or pamphlets on repentance per se. However, in several books he gave clear statements of his teaching: Dr. Rice, Here is my Question (pp. 248-249); several places in Dr. Rice, Here are More Questions; Filled With the Spirit (Acts commentary), comments on Acts 2, 17:30.

Simply put, he believed that repentance and faith were two simultaneous sides to the same coin. Repentance emphasizes the changing of mind concerning sin and the turning from it to Jesus Christ. Faith emphasizes the God-ward side of the coin.

"One who repents, that is, has turned from rebellion and unbelief to trust Christ, has believed, of course. One who trusts in Christ has necessarily turned his heart from rebellion and rejection of Christ and so has repented" (Dr. Rice, Here is my Question, p. 248).