Grace Evangelical Society: Controversial Teaching

[skypair]

One day I heard the gospel in this small southern Philippine town, and got a Bible, and turned in repentance to Christ.
I had faith in Christ.
I claimed Christ as my Savior, and He claimed me. He told me right there and then as I read the Scripture that I was His own, and one day He is coming back for me, and all the rest of His own, and I understood, the first time I read it, what the Bible meant when it said "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God".

Now THIS is the testimony and theology that you ought to have, pinoy!! As with Sardis (your other love) "Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast,..." Rev 3:6

I went back underground. Couldn't leave it, heck, they'd cut my head off.
Still preached that only a revolution can change the societal structure for the benefit of the masses.

Pinoy, that's eloquent testimony to Mt 13:22 -- "He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word,..." I'm with you, bro. I witnessed to my best friend and about had my head handed to me on a plater (nothing like you case, though). But you were SAVED! And what came along? Apparently help from God so that you could pursue Him yet again!

skypair

 

[Revmitchell]

Revmitchell you have gone the way a number of folks have gone on this board from time to time and that is posting Scripture and highlighting a word and then acting as though you have proven a point. Just because the word "repent" is contained in two lines of Scripture in no ways proves your point.

Bottom line is turning away from sin and to a life of obedience is never required of someone to receive everlasting life. That is to mingle man's work in with the Precious/Perfect Works of Jesus Christ. :tear: :tear: :tear: :tear:

I see. No actual response just this mess.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Bottom line is turning away from sin and to a life of obedience is never required of someone to receive everlasting life.

I am in agreement with this, SeekingHisTruth.
BUT only in as far as to "receive everlasting life" is concerned.

HOWEVER (not yelling, just for emphasis, ok ?), it is required or at least expected of one who already has everlasting life, don't you agree ?

Let me see.

Comes now a sodomite who says he "received" everlasting life, and has turned in faith to Christ already, and he becomes your friend in church.

What will you tell him if he tells you that he would like to join the church, to be baptized, and you learn that he is still a practicing sodomite ?

Okay, brother, all we need is faith anyway.

I don't think you will do that, would you, now, brother ?

 

[EdSutton]

BTW,

I believe -- Lou, correct me if I am wrong -- this idea of "crossless" salvation reflects a common perception of Calvinism, that the cross is ancillary to the God's decision regarding one's salvation.

The cross is to election what baptism is to the regeneration -- a sign of something already accomplished and guaranteed whether the sign is given or not (consider that Calvinists also believe that the OT saints were saved/regenerated in the same way we are WITHOUT either sign - baptism or the cross!).

Right or wrong (and I surmise this depends on the individual) the impression is that there is no way to God that must pass by the cross. That "the election of God = salvation" rather than "in Christ = salvation."

skyair

I like your new name, here.

I'm not Lou Martuneac, but will jump in here, for a second, anyhow.

The "crossless gospel" 'controversy' does not really have specifically to do with 'Calvinism', per se, any more than do some other related issues, including "Lordship Salvation" and the subject of 'repentence'.

The last paragraph in the first post in this thread should (and I believe does) show that the entire 'basis' for salvation is the finished work on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ.

The controversy has arisen over the 'message' and/or definition of the gospel, and the presentation of that message, IMO.

Lou Martuneac can feel free to disagree with me on this, should he choose. He and I may not (and probably don't) specifically agree on everything, but I do think that both he and I pretty well seem to understand each other.

Ed

 

[SeekingHisTruth]

No actual response just this mess.

There was a response. Maybe you missed it. I will re-word it a little. The point is that just because you post a couple of Scriptures that have a "buzz" word in it does "not" automatically prove your point.

There are a number of Scripture that contain the word "reprent", but that truth does not prove that one has to "repent" (turn from their life of sin or feel sorry for their sin, etc.).

For some reason there are a number of folks on this board that think just because they can post some Scripture with their buzz words in them it some how supports what they are saying. That simply is not the case.

If I have to turn from my life of sin in order to receive everlasting life then Paul is a liar. It's really that plain and simple. Either he was telling the truth or he wasn't. I believe he was telling the truth.

 

[SeekingHisTruth]

HOWEVER (not yelling, just for emphasis, ok ?), it is required or at least expected of one who already has everlasting life, don't you agree?

AMEN!

Comes now a sodomite who says he "received" everlasting life, and has turned in faith to Christ already, and he becomes your friend in church.

What will you tell him if he tells you that he would like to join the church, to be baptized, and you learn that he is still a practicing sodomite ?

Okay, brother, all we need is faith anyway.

I don't think you will do that, would you, now, brother?

I don't believe anyone that is practicing sin of any kind in an unrepentant manner is eligible for church membership or baptism! The church of today would do well to understand what discipleship and baptism is all about instead of pushing people into baptism without a complete understanding of the significance.

 

[Revmitchell]

There was a response. Maybe you missed it. I will re-word it a little. The point is that just because you post a couple of Scriptures that have a "buzz" word in it does "not" automatically prove your point.

There are a number of Scripture that contain the word "reprent", but that truth does not prove that one has to "repent" (turn from their life of sin or feel sorry for their sin, etc.).

For some reason there are a number of folks on this board that think just because they can post some Scripture with their buzz words in them it some how supports what they are saying. That simply is not the case.

If I have to turn from my life of sin in order to receive everlasting life then Paul is a liar. It's really that plain and simple. Either he was telling the truth or he wasn't. I believe he was telling the truth.

And yet you did nothing to address the verse other than to make a vague statment. The context of those verses are eternal salvation. Of course millenium exclusionists believe the context is the millenium. So which do you hold to? It is hard to address repsones other than in a vague way when you are trying to hide your true position and identity.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I like your new name, here.

I'm not Lou Martuneac, but will jump in here, for a second, anyhow.

The "crossless gospel" 'controversy' does not really have specifically to do with 'Calvinism', per se, any more than do some other related issues, including "Lordship Salvation" and the subject of 'repentence'.

The last paragraph in the first post in this thread should (and I believe does) show that the entire 'basis' for salvation is the finished work on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ.

The controversy has arisen over the 'message' and/or definition of the gospel, and the presentation of that message, IMO.

Lou Martuneac can feel free to disagree with me on this, should he choose. He and I may not (and probably don't) specifically agree on everything, but I do think that both he and I pretty well seem to understand each other.

Ed

Hi Ed:

Thanks for filling in as my double. :wavey:

You wrote,

"The controversy has arisen over the 'message' and/or definition of the gospel, and the presentation of that message, IMO."

I agree with this, but I would further clarify this to the real crux of the debate. The real controversy is over what the lost must believe for the recepetion of eternal life.

The GES/Crossles camp says the lost man does not have understand or believe in the finished work or deity of Jesus and can still be saved. They insist the lost man does not have to know who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation. That is the REAL crux of the controversy!

This is beng played out in a MAJOR way right now with the FGA issuing a very disapponting statement. Shameless plug alert!

You can read about it at my blog, FGA Executive Counsel's Official Statement


Lou

 

[SeekingHisTruth]

And yet you did nothing to address the verse other than to make a vague statment.

"I" don't need to address the verse as the Spirit through Paul speaks much more clear than "I" do. And the Spirit through Paul said "believe" and you WILL BE SAVED.

Now either he was telling the truth or he wasn't. I happen to believe he was, and as such that means "your" understanding of what those verses mean is errant. If "your" view is correct then Paul is lying and even worse the Spirit was lying and we know that is an impossibility.

So what "I" have to say about anything is meaningless. We only need concern ourself with what does "Scripture" say. And it says BELIEVE. And it says by God's grace THROUGH FAITH.

That should be enough said.

As I have said to you before and I will say to you again you are so wrapped up in hatred for ME that it affects you in other areas.

Finally there is no way to reconcile your view with Acts 16:30-31 and Eph. 2:8-9 just to name two verses.

 

[Revmitchell]

"I" don't need to address the verse as the Spirit through Paul speaks much more clear than "I" do. And the Spirit through Paul said "believe" and you WILL BE SAVED.

Now either he was telling the truth or he wasn't. I happen to believe he was, and as such that means "your" understanding of what those verses mean is errant. If "your" view is correct then Paul is lying and even worse the Spirit was lying and we know that is an impossibility.

So what "I" have to say about anything is meaningless. We only need concern ourself with what does "Scripture" say. And it says BELIEVE. And it says by God's grace THROUGH FAITH.

That should be enough said.

As I have said to you before and I will say to you again you are so wrapped up in hatred for ME that it affects you in other areas.

Finally there is no way to reconcile your view with Acts 16:30-31 and Eph. 2:8-9 just to name two verses.

JJump I dont hate you. But I do oppose your false doctrine. And I will ask again, do you see the verses I posted below as being in the context of eternal salvation or the Millenium?

Lu 15:7 - Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
Lu 15:10 - Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.

 

[SeekingHisTruth]

Revmitchell again instead of getting all wrapped up in ME why don't you try and reconcile your view of those verses with the two verses that I gave you, because your views are in direct conflict with those two verses and then you tell me what they are talking about.

I will say it again, either Paul was lying or he was telling the truth. You can not hold your view of repentance and continue to say that Paul was telling the truth. The two topics at hand are impossible to mesh together into the same subject, because it has to do with works. Human works can NEVER enter the picture of everlasting life. EVER.

 

[browes]

In light of all that has been discussed on this thread, will someone explain the meaning of this scripture? I would be interested to hear from both sides.

Acts 2:36-38 (NIV)

36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this; God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

 

[SeekingHisTruth]

Acts 2:36-38 (NIV)

36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this; God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Well most consider this a passage that has to do with everlasting life (even though that is never addressed). One group says see you have to be baptised in order to have everlasting life and then the other group says no you don't have to be baptised to have everlasting life, because of some other verses, but they really have no answer for this other than trying to change the word "for".

If we would just let the text speak for itself instead of trying to cram it into a man-made theology we can clear see that Peter is NOT preaching the message of everlasting life (that is believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved - believing that He died and shed His blood on our behalf a sinner).

In fact what Peter is preaching is that the Jews "murdered" their Messiah. He was trying to get them to see that what they had been searching for was in fact right in their midst and when He was there they wanted nothing to do with Him and ultimately had Him killed.

It is a message of the murder of the King. And so what they were asking for was how do they right their wrong.

If you would like to study these matters out in greater Scriptural detail feel free to send me a PM, but that is the basic nuts and bolts if we allow the text to say what it says .

 

[webdog]

JJump I dont hate you. But I do oppose your false doctrine. And I will ask again, do you see the verses I posted below as being in the context of eternal salvation or the Millenium?

Lu 15:7 - Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
Lu 15:10 - Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.

Why did you call him JJump

 

[SeekingHisTruth]

Why did you call him JJump

Because it is easier to create a diversion and shift the focus of the conversation than it is to deal with inconsistencies in one's theology. We see this debate tactic used constantly in threads or should I say :tear: .

 

[webdog]

So are you JJump, and if you joined in Sept. 07...how would you know who he is?

 

[Revmitchell]

Revmitchell again instead of getting all wrapped up in ME why don't you try and reconcile your view of those verses with the two verses that I gave you, because your views are in direct conflict with those two verses and then you tell me what they are talking about.

I will say it again, either Paul was lying or he was telling the truth. You can not hold your view of repentance and continue to say that Paul was telling the truth. The two topics at hand are impossible to mesh together into the same subject, because it has to do with works. Human works can NEVER enter the picture of everlasting life. EVER.

Because ME is the very foundation of all your arguments jason.

Here is an indisputable example:

Quote:
Acts 2:36-38 (NIV)

36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this; God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Well most consider this a passage that has to do with everlasting life (even though that is never addressed). One group says see you have to be baptised in order to have everlasting life and then the other group says no you don't have to be baptised to have everlasting life, because of some other verses, but they really have no answer for this other than trying to change the word "for".

If we would just let the text speak for itself instead of trying to cram it into a man-made theology we can clear see that Peter is NOT preaching the message of everlasting life (that is believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved - believing that He died and shed His blood on our behalf a sinner).

Post #53

And if by chance I am wrong ( but I am not) just what message is Paul preaching here?

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Recognize, Mark & Avoid

Dear BB:

Most of these doctrinal aberrations coming from Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) fly under the radar of most fundamental Baptist pastors. Nevertheless, these teachings could make their way into our churches and that would be another tragedy of the Crossless gospel.

My goal is to share just enough information about who these men are and their egregious errors so that those who read these articles will be better able to recognize the errors once they encounter them and know their advocates by name (1 Tim. 1:20).

Through this unsuspecting believers will not be easily deceived by them, will be able to understand why it is wrong, and biblically resist these errors.

Many of our people are having their personal theology shaped by what they read at sites all over the Internet. Nothing inherently wrong with the Internet, but it is easy access to all sorts of doctrine: some good and some bad. This makes well-meaning believers susceptible to gross heresy of every sort.

The GES, Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and their followers have become teachers of a false Gospel and other assorted doctrinal errors. They are undermining the Word of God for reductionist views of the Gospel. They are doing all they can to spread their egregious errors into evangelical circles. Thankfully, many have come to recognize this and have followed the biblical mandates to “mark” these men who are the “cause (of) divisions and offences” in the body of Christ and local churches through their “contrary doctrine,” and believers are being warned to “avoid them.” (Romans 16:17)

May I remind our pastors of Paul’s admonition, which should resonate today just as clearly as it did to the Ephesian elders,

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears,” (Acts 20:28-31).

LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Antonio da Rosa on the Deity & Finished Work of Christ

Arguably to most vocal advocate for the Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, Grace Evangelical Society’s Crossless interpretation of the Gospel is Antonio da Rosa. Following are examples of the extremism of the Crossless gospel as articulated by da Rosa.

From da Rosa’s article, Believe Christ’s Promise and You are Saved, No Matter What Misconceptions You Hold

“If a JW hears me speak of Christ’s deity and asks me about it, I will say, ‘Let us agree to disagree about this subject.’

At the moment that a JW or a Mormon is convinced that Jesus Christ has given to them unrevokable (sic) eternal life when they believed on Him for it, I would consider such a one saved, REGARDLESS of their varied misconcetions (sic) and beliefs about Jesus.

I would never say you don’t have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. This has the import of the gospel proposition which makes it salvific! If someone asks me point blank, do I beleive that one must believe that Jesus is God in order to go to heaven, I would say ‘NO!’”

Antonio da Rosa wrote the following at Is Christ’s Deity Essential?

“Believing into Jesus Christ by taking Him at His word in His promise in scriptures such as John 3:16; 5:24; 6:35-40; 6:47; 11:25-26.

Notice that these scriptures speak of Christ’s absolute sufficiency, authority, readiness, willingness and desire to impart the free gift of eternal security to the one who believes Him.

John 6:47 ‘Most asssuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life’.



There is no talk here about His death or resurrection, no talk about His deity. It is talk about entrusting one’s eternal well-being to Him. If you do that, regardless of the blindspots in your theology, you are eternally saved.”

Antonio da Rosa from his article, How I Might Do Evangelism With a Jewish Man

“If I were talking to a Jew, he may very well ask me about the deity and humanity of Jesus. I would certainly entertain his questions and answer them to the best of my ability. But if such a one continued to express doubts or objections to this, I would say politely, ‘Let us for the time being put this issue on the back-burner. Can I show you from the Jewish Scriptures that the advent of Jesus Christ fulfills many prophecies?’”

Objections and denials of things pertaining to Jesus can surely preclude one from faith in Him for eternal life. If this Jew can put aside for the moment the discussion of Christ’s deity, and Christ's voluntary consent to die, and look in a considerate way at the prophecies concerning Christ’s advent in the Old Testament, His miracles, His teachings, His compassionate acts, His righteous and holy acts, and through consideration of these things, become persuaded that Jesus guarantees his eternal destiny through faith, why would anyone consider him unsaved?”

The Crossless gospel of Hodges, Wilkin, Niemela, Johnson (Jim) and da Rosa is the kind of egregious doctrinal error that is the cause of and reason for “divisions and offences” in the body of Christ.

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them, ” (Romans 16:17).

The biblical mandate is clear, for the purity of the church, believers are to “mark” and “avoid” the teachers of “contrary” doctrine. The Crossless gospel is just such as “contrary” doctrine.


LM

 

[skypair]

Lou,

In reading those articles, I am noticing that Rosa and Hodge use a valid pre-cross gospel IOW, If one just believed on Jesus before the cross, they would have eternal life knowing Him. It would be just as if God had come to set up His kingdom in His own presence! But clearly after the cross, the cross must be annunciated and personally appropriated.

I noticed in one of the articles citations from Acts 2, Jesus referred to Himself as "Lord and Christ" -- God and Messiah. It WAS the OT expectation and gospel that God would come and save His people from their sins (hence the name Jesus as well). Peter was saying that this was the very fulfillment of the OT gospel and that they have slain God and Messiah Who through death amazingly would now save them!

Now after the cross, it is quite likely that these people would also recognize that the means of God saving His people was the cross and that the cross would be an integral part of the message of believing in "Lord and Christ!"

Again what I think we have is teachers who fail to comprehend dispensationalism.

skypair