Question to the GES: Deity of Christ

[standingfirminChrist]

I missed your response to me Ed... sorry. I don't care if Lou is the pope. I still stand on my response to him. Thanks anyway.

No need to get snippety. Speak the truth in love.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Do you know the difference between predestination and double predestination? Where have I said I believe in double predestination? Can you supply the quote?

Do you really understand Calvinism? It does not seem so.

Did Paul believe the diety of Christ when the Lord struck him down?

How would you exegete Romans 2:14-16? Is there possibly room there for those who do not have our complete theology? Are you sure? Why do you assume the role of judge? I thought that was Christ's. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15. in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16. on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
I personally do not think it is an exercise of the will to be born again. I refer to John 1:13 for that view.

I of course believe and teach the necessity of the cross... the ressurection... and the diety of Christ. I'm just not dogmatic about how much a person has to understand before he can be born again. I think many are born again without much theology.... most actually. The early church did not believe in the divinity of Chirst. Refer to the early writers to see that. Were they all lost because they had faulty theology? Many suffered being maimed for Christ. They were willing to die for their Savior and the theology that they understood. How about all the professing believers who did not have scripture to study and understand? Were they all lost? Was not the simple Gospel enough? Did you know that many of the early churches did not have complete bibles? I think it is dangerous to assume a role that is not ours.
You of course are entitled to your opinion. God bless.

My wife is very learned in the Scripture. She had informed me that although she has found predestination in the Scripture, there is no evidence of double predestination found anywhere the the Word of God.

Why must you add to the Word?

 

[Linda64]

Do you know the difference between predestination and double predestination? Where have I said I believe in double predestination? Can you supply the quote?

I didn't know that there was such a thing as "double predestination" in the Bible. Where in the Bible does one find such a teaching?

 

[npetreley]

I didn't know that there was such a thing as "double predestination" in the Bible. Where in the Bible does one find such a teaching?

In the following, there are two types of vessels - those prepared for destruction, and those prepared for glory.

Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory

 

[reformedbeliever]

No need to get snippety. Speak the truth in love.

Who was getting snippety? The truth was spoken in love.

 

[reformedbeliever]

My wife is very learned in the Scripture. She had informed me that although she has found predestination in the Scripture, there is no evidence of double predestination found anywhere the the Word of God.

Why must you add to the Word?

You have got to be kidding me? lol I am not adding to the Word.

Is the word trinity found in the word of God? If someone believes or does not believe in the trinity are they adding to the word of God?

Why do you accuse me of adding to the word of God. If your wife is learned in the Scripture, why do you think you have to defend her? :wavey:

 

[reformedbeliever]

I didn't know that there was such a thing as "double predestination" in the Bible. Where in the Bible does one find such a teaching?

Did you know there is no such thing as trinity in the scripture? The doctrine can be found there however.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I wasn't defending her. I was pointing out the fact that double predestination is a man-made doctrine and not to be found in God's Word.

 

[reformedbeliever]

I wasn't defending her. I was pointing out the fact that double predestination is a man-made doctrine and not to be found in God's Word.

You don't get it do you? I never said double predestination is true doctrine. Your wife said that I believed that men are predestined to heaven and hell. That is not true. I do not believe in double predestination. Do you understand now?

As far as man made doctrine goes, i'm not so sure about that either. There are verses of the bible that do lean toward double predestination. That is probably the subject of another thread however. I'm done arguing with you and your wife. Go back and read what she posted to me. You will find that she is saying that I believe in something I do not. I even asked for quotes if she could provide them. God bless you both.

 

[Linda64]

Did you know there is no such thing as trinity in the scripture? The doctrine can be found there however.

I am very well aware of that.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8)

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Hi Folks:

Sorry, that I have so little time to interact here this week. Very busy at work and in the middle of the "Crossless" gospel controversy.

Please forgive having to direct you to the MAJOR update.

Today Bob Wilkin's calls for someone to debate him was responded to with a challenge to a formal debate. Go to: An Open Challenge for a Public Debate Between Ron Shea and Bob Wilkin.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Christ's Deity Under Seige

To All:

The debate with the advocates of the “Crossless” gospel has reveled that they take a disturbing position on the titles of the Lord Jesus Christ.

First, according to the “Crossless” gospel lost men do not need to know, understand or believe anything about Jesus Christ or what He did to provide for salvation. They refer to anything more than belief in the name Jesus, whoever the sinner thinks Jesus is, as “excess baggage,” and “checklist evangelism.”

Second, the “Crossless” advocates also believe that a Jehovah’s Witness or any lost person can hold to heretical beliefs about the Lord Jesus Christ, but as long as he believes in the name Jesus as the Giver of eternal life he will be born again.

Third, Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, Jeremy Myers and the official position of the GES is that His titles; “Christ” and “Son of God” do not mean or indicate the deity of Jesus Christ.

It is bad enough that the advocates of the “Crossless” gospel eradicate the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Gospel, but they also chip away at the titles of the Lord Jesus Christ to keep their egregious position glued together.

On Monday morning an article by Greg Schliesmann will be at my blog titled, The “Christ” Under Siege. Those of you who are familiar with the book by Zane Hodges will recognize the direction of The “Christ” Under Siege.


LM

 

[MB]

In the following, there are two types of vessels - those prepared for destruction, and those prepared for glory.

A suppose sceanerio is trully sad evidence for double predesination. I say supposed because of the first two words makes it supposed. The truth of the matter is, we are all vessels of wrath before Salvation.
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
MB

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Hi Lou Martueac,
I wouldn't go so far as saying that Calvinist are "cross less advocates". I'm not a Calvinist but I've spoken with many of them here and else where. MB

MB:

Who ever got the idea that I was speaking of Calvinism or the Calvinist in regard to "Crossless" gospel got confused somewhere.

A discussion of double predestination has nothing to do with the interpretation of the Gospel coming from the GES, Hodges and Wilkin.


LM

PS: For the record I know what DP is and do not personally know of any Calvinist who holds to it, but have read some articles that support DP.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

The Gold Mine of Souls

Imagine missionary efforts 200 hundred years ago in the, “Gold Mine of Souls.”

If William Carey took the “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel to the Hindu of India he would have, in his first year, seen results that would have surpassed Pentecost or any revival campaign the world has ever seen.

The evangelistic ministry of a Grace Evangelical Society (GES) "Crossless" missionary would eclipse the evangelistic achievements of Adoniram Judson, David Livingstone, Jonathan Goforth, and J. Hudson Taylor.

Picture, if you will, a GES “Crossless/Deityless” gospel preaching missionary to India. That missionary would tell the Hindu that (in spite of his worship of many gods) “if you will believe in the name Jesus as the giver of eternal life, whomever you think Jesus is, you will receive eternal life.” The missionary would realize a stampede of new believers in the name Jesus, but not one genuine conversion.

Now, think about the Bible-believing missionary (or a seminary trained national pastor/evangelist) who comes to that town after the “Crossless/Deityless” gospel was taught. He will have the double difficulty of preaching the unsearchable riches of the Lord Jesus Christ to those whose minds are not only blinded (2 Cor. 4: 3-6), but have also have been told they are born again, and already possess the gift of eternal life.


LM

 

[JustChristian]

The GES camp (Hodges, Wilkin, Myers, da Rosa) view what you just cited from Scripture, belief in the death and resurrection of Christ, as unnecessary additions to the Gospel.

Their "Crossless" position is that all a lost person must believe is Jesus is the Giver of eternal life and he is born again.

They go so far as to state that the lost man does need to know or understand he is a sinner and still can be born again ONLY by believing Jesus is he Giver of eernal life.

They view the Gospel of John with such passion that for them it trumps and negates the rest of the NT on the doctrine of salvation/the Gospel.


LM

They also reject the requirement that someone must accept Christ as Lord in order to be saved and go so far as to call this a heresy. I remember that when i was baptized I was asked if I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. This, according to Hodges, is heresy.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Crossless & Lordship Teaching: Both Wrong!

They also reject the requirement that someone must accept Christ as Lord in order to be saved and go so far as to call this a heresy. I remember that when i was baptized I was asked if I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. This, according to Hodges, is heresy.

BB:

1) Hodges is so far out-of-balance on the Gospel and repentance he has lost any right or credibility to determine or speak on what is right or wrong over the Gospel.

2) Please do not take my next comments as though they are in regard to your conversion experience. They are in regard to the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel.

John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel is just as far to the other end of the extreme theological pendulum swing as Hodges is on his end.

He (Jesus) wants disciples willing to forsake everything. This calls for full-scale self denial-to the point of willingness to die for His sake if necessary. That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for Him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. (John MacArthur, TGATJ [Revised & Expanded Edition].)

The simple truth is that Jesus can be believed for eternal salvation apart from any detailed knowledge of what He did to provide it. (Zane Hodges: How to Lead People to Christ, Pt. 2)

Both are wrong and have either added to or taken away from the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hodges is wrong by reduction and subtraction; MacArthur is wrong by addition.

For more see:

John MacArthur’s Discipleship Salvation

Hodges: The “Christ” Under Siege


LM

 

[EdSutton]

BB:

1) Hodges is so far out-of-balance on the Gospel and repentance he has lost any right or credibility to determine or speak on what is right or wrong over the Gospel.

2) Please do not take my next comments as though they are in regard to your conversion experience. They are in regard to the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel.

John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel is just as far to the other end of the extreme theological pendulum swing as Hodges is on his end.



Both are wrong and have either added to or taken away from the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hodges is wrong by reduction and subtraction; MacArthur is wrong by addition.

For more see:

John MacArthur’s Discipleship Salvation

Hodges: The “Christ” Under Siege


LM

Lou Martuneac has made a great point here with one sentence. I am not accepting or not accepting any particular individual or pointing them out, for the purpose of this illustration. Let me use some Scriptural illustrations.

1 And now, Israel, hearken to the statutes and to the ordinances which I teach you, to do [them], that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which Jehovah the God of your fathers giveth you.
2 Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye take from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you. (Deut. 4:1-2 - DARBY)



16 *I* Jesus have sent mine angel to testify these things to you in the assemblies. *I* am the root and offspring of David, the bright [and] morning star.
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is athirst come; he that will, let him take [the] water of life freely.
18 *I* testify to every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any one shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book.
19 And if any one take from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book. (Rev. 22:16-19 - DARBY)

1 Then the scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem come up to Jesus, saying,
2 Why do thy disciples transgress what has been delivered by the ancients? for they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answering said to them, Why do *ye* also transgress the commandment of God on account of your traditional teaching?
4 For God commanded saying, Honour father and mother; and, He that speaks ill of father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But *ye* say, Whosoever shall say to his father or mother, It is a gift, whatsoever [it be] by which [received] from me thou wouldest be profited:
6 and he shall in no wise honour his father or his mother; and ye have made void the commandment of God on account of your traditional teaching.
7 Hypocrites! well has Esaias prophesied about you, saying,
8 This people honour me with the lips, but their heart is far away from me;
9 but in vain do they worship me, teaching [as] teachings commandments of men. (Matt. 15:1-9 - DARBY)



2 But we have rejected the hidden things of shame, not walking in deceit, nor falsifying the word of God, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every conscience of men before God. (II Cor. 4:2 - DARBY)

8 But if even *we* or an angel out of heaven announce as glad tidings to you [anything] besides what we have announced as glad tidings to you, let him be accursed.
9 As we have said before, now also again I say, If any one announce to you as glad tidings [anything] besides what ye have received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8-9 - DARBY)

There is no real difference between adding to or taking away from the written Word of God. Both are a misuse, and one is no more or no less a misuse than is the other. That is true whether we are talking about what books (should) constitute Scripture; what is the actual text of Scripture; what is the message of Scripture; what we 'emphasize' from Scripture, in this case, the Gospel, the message to the world.

What God is saying, in essence, in our vernacular, is "It's mine! Keep your hands off of it!" You are to be My witnesses! You are not to be My Editors!"



When we attempt to make Scripture say other than what it says, we are on extremely dangerous ground. And as the gospel is an integral part of the whole message of the written Word of God, when one adds to or takes away from it in whatever fashion, hence, making it "another gospel", in the words of the KJV, one has added to, or taken away from "the whole counsel of God".

One more, I'll say it, and put it another way. We both misuse and abuse, God and his word, whether we "rip the heart of the Divine God out of the Bible", or "fill the Bible full of the heart of fallen man"! And that goes for "in the whole" or "in the part".

Ed

 

[npetreley]

A suppose sceanerio is trully sad evidence for double predesination. I say supposed because of the first two words makes it supposed.

Right. And the supposition is, what if? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory? Do you have a problem with that? Apparently you do.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Men:

Those of you who want to discuss double-predestination (DP), please begin a new thread.

DP is not the subject of this thread.

Thanks,


Lou