Bob Wilkin Erases All Trace of "Crossless" Gospel Debate

[Lou Martuneac]

To All:

I am reporting the sudden disappearance from the Grace Evangelical Society's blog of all articles and comments on their “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel.

There have been incremental steps leading toward today's deletion of the articles. Initially the GES staff would not answer questions on the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, then the closing of comment threads, then moderating threads to intercept legitimate questions. Today a total and complete shut down of the discussion.

This move does not transcended the doctrinal debate, but this now additionally becomes a credibility and integrity issue for Wilkin, Myers, the GES and its board.

The only surprise is that Wilkin did not order the destruction of the on-line scrutiny and evidence of what they truly believe long before today. Today's action is another definitive indication that these men do not want to expose their interpretation of the Gospel to any further legitimate scrutiny, discussion and questions.

Incidentally, I did capture a snap shot from the GES blog of the Sept. 10 & 14 articles (in their entirety) titled, GES Board Turns Down Debate Offer & Where Do We Find the Saving Message respectively.

More to follow…


LM

 

[John of Japan]

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]

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.

Hi John:

Been busy, sorry I haven't been back here lately.

If you read the article title The "Christ" Under Siege you will see how Hodges and the GES assault the deity of Jesus Christ by dumbing down His title, "Christ."


Lou

 

[EdSutton]

Hi John:

Been busy, sorry I haven't been back here lately.

If you read the article title The "Christ" Under Siege you will see how Hodges and the GES assault the deity of Jesus Christ by dumbing down His title, "Christ."


Lou

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

 

[standingfirminChrist]

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."

 

[John of Japan]

Hi John:

Been busy, sorry I haven't been back here lately.

If you read the article title The "Christ" Under Siege you will see how Hodges and the GES assault the deity of Jesus Christ by dumbing down His title, "Christ."

Lou

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.

 

[EdSutton]

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."

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

 

[EdSutton]

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

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

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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

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

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

 

[Lou Martuneac]

John/Ed:

Between work, family and my efforts to deal with the teaching of the “Crossless” gospel advocates I am some what overwhelmed

For some reason the filters for my computer at work block me from opening the BB page. I can go to all sorts of Christian sites, but something at this board gets the site blocked.

So, all I have time for today is to say I am reading your notes. There is a new series starting tomorrow at my blog.

The deity issue: By their abuse of His titles it is in my opinion a dumbing down, and minimizing of His name and Person in the mind of the lost man. It is an incremental assault on His deity, and I believe they are going to go further with this.

Yours in Him,


Lou

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Why is that?

GES on Eternal Salvation:

We believe that God sovereignly chose those who would be saved before the foundation of the world. This we call divine election. Yet this must be balanced against the equally biblical truth that people are able to respond to God’s drawing. Ultimately there is a mystery here that we cannot now fully comprehend. God sovereignly chooses and man is free to respond to God’s drawing. ??

The sole condition for receiving eternal salvation from hell is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man’s sin and rose from the dead (John 3:16-18; 6:47; Acts 16:31). No act of obedience, preceding or following faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as commitment to obey, sorrow for sin, turning from one’s sin, baptism, or submission to the Lordship of Christ, may be added to, or considered as a part of, faith as a condition for receiving eternal salvation (Rom 4:5; Gal 2:16; Titus 3:5). This saving transaction between God and the sinner is simply the giving and receiving of a free gift (John 4:10; Eph 2:8-9; Rev 22:17).??

There is no biblical distinction between “head faith” and “heart faith.” Saving faith is the conviction that Jesus Christ indeed guarantees eternal life to all who simply believe in Him for it (John 5:24; 11:25-27; 20:31; 1 Tim 1:16).

Ed:

I gave this a quick perusal. That is mostly a statement against some elements of Calvinism and Lordship Salvation and I am for the repudiation of both.

The GES statement above on salvation is boiled down to just the last sentence and there you have a message that is devoid of the cross, His resurrection, His deity. Just believe Jesus is the Giver of eternal life and you are born again.

Also do you notice the word, “Gospel” never appears. Why is that?


Lou

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Men:

I put this up today. Boiling Down the "Crossless" Gospel.

A synopsis of what is coming from Hodges, Wilkin and the GES.


LM

 

[John of Japan]

Men:

I put this up today. Boiling Down the "Crossless" Gospel.

A synopsis of what is coming from Hodges, Wilkin and the GES.


LM

Thanks Lou. That was informative.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

John:

Repentance is one of the most fiercely contested areas of discussion in the Lordship Salvation/Free Grace debate.

At my site, I am preparing a poll question, with multiple answers to choose from. It may be ready as early as Monday, but no later than Tuesday morning. It will be everyon'es chance to participate in an informal, anonymous poll on the definition of biblical repentance.

Plus, I am going to open the comment thread for anonymous interaction of the doctrine of repentance. I am, however, going to give one specific instruction for posting in that thread as an anonymous guest.


Lou

 

[John of Japan]

John:

Repentance is one of the most fiercely contested areas of discussion in the Lordship Salvation/Free Grace debate.

At my site, I am preparing a poll question, with multiple answers to choose from. It may be ready as early as Monday, but no later than Tuesday morning. It will be everyon'es chance to participate in an informal, anonymous poll on the definition of biblical repentance.

Plus, I am going to open the comment thread for anonymous interaction of the doctrine of repentance. I am, however, going to give one specific instruction for posting in that thread as an anonymous guest.

Lou

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 Martuneac]

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.

Hi John:

I would be intersted in your recommendation of John R's best on repentance. I would like to add it to my files.

Book or pamphlet.

Thanks,


Lou

 

[John of Japan]

Hi John:

I would be intersted in your recommendation of John R's best on repentance. I would like to add it to my files.

Book or pamphlet.

Thanks,


Lou

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).