The Grace Evangelical Society Is Heretical

[pinoybaptist]

It is a rare thing when I can say I agree with Martin -- but common that I disagree with PinoyBaptist!!

Let me put it this way.
Christ died for all of His people, regardless of when they existed on this earth, where they existed on this earth, and regardless of their religious or political circumstances.
For that action, of dying and rising for them and sealing their redemption with His blood, He demanded nothing from them. Not faith, not repentance, not knowledge of Him, not acceptance of Him.
As a result of His actions on their behalf, they are seen by God in Him, they are hid in Him, their lives are in Him, and He is their life.
Their eventual and final destination from wherever they are on this earth is Heaven at His Father's house where they will glorify Him for all ages to come in the presence of all the angels and of the Father and the Spirit.
The eternal salvation of all of God's people, pre-calvary, was secured in Christ the Lamb of Glory whose blood was spilled before the foundation of the world.

That is eternal salvation. All of grace. None of works or any semblance of it. It demands nothing. It gives everything.

There is a second aspect to the salvation which Christ provided. He, the eternal God which Heaven cannot contain, who is everywhere and Omnipotent, limited His presence in the body of Jesus Christ, lived a sinless and perfect life, and was slain the innocent on behalf of the guilty.
That action at Calvary finished the work of eternal salvation for God's people, most especially for those who were living in His time, and who will be born after His time and until He comes for them.

He sends out His apostle to inform His people, whoever they are that they can reach with their limited presence and powers of movement, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to inform these people of their salvation. and to teach them, and gather them together in order for them to glorify God in their midst on this earth, that the idol worshipping population of the earth may know that there is One God and He moves among His people.

These His elect are eternally saved because of Christ and Christ only. Their salvation did not come fully effective because they believed, or repented, or have shown faith.

Their belief, repentance, and faith is a confirmation of their new birth, eternal salvation, and being people of God, and their faith comes because of hearing the word of God, but that faith is not the cause of their eternal salvation. That faith is the result of their eternal salvation. The evidence of their sonship.

However, not all for whom Christ authored eternal salvation will be reached by the good news of their eternal salvation, and so some of these will die without knowing of the Christ in Heaven who redeemed them. They will die without knowing of Christ for the simple reason that no gospel preacher reached them in their lifetime or because of their political circumstances or for whatever reason a fallen world in which they (who are not of that world) happen to be victims of.

In that sense, eternal salvation demanded nothing, extracts nothing from the sinner.
Timely salvation demands proof of that salvation. In Paul's words: "work out your own salvation".

No offense, but nobody on this board have yet accorded to Christ the SOLE GLORY of having redeemed His people based only on HIS WORK, HIS MOTIVES AND HIS MERCY.

You all have attached requirements such as faith, obedience, repentance, and the like. Tit for tat and you get heaven (no malice intended).

 

[Martin]

Again, I ask, what kind of "saved" ? As I see it, you and yours' reaction to the GES' doctrines may be (note: MAY be) knee-jerk.

==I don't think so. What you may not be aware of is that I was once a member of the Grace Evangelical Society and a strong supporter of the anti-Lordship, Free Grace position. How and why I moved to the Lordship issue is a detailed story that I have posted on these boards before. Therefore I know their arguments, I have their books, this is not kneejerk. Back then I was not aware that they were preaching a crossless gospel, even then I would never have agreed with such a thing.

As for the "kind of saved" thing, that is a false argument when it comes from people like Wilkin and Hodges. What they do is everytime they don't like what a salvation verse says, they claim it has nothing to do with eternal salvation. They set up a catch 22 that prevents anyone from being able to argue with them. I don't know if that is what you are doing here or not. If it is, then allow me to say upfront that I do believe that Romans 10:9 (ff) is talking about eternal salvation.

I pointed out that Paul wanted to see the Jews saved (vs1). Paul talks about the Jews trying to obtain a false righteousness and then he talks about the true righteousness (vss3-8) and then he gives them "the word of faith" that they preached (vs8). What is that? "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (vs9). He goes on to describe it even more (vss10-13, Acts 2:21). The verse is talking about eternal salvation, not just "doctrinally saved" (whatever that means). And what does that verse talk about? Believing in the death and resurrection of Christ.

Have you ever stopped to think that to say or teach "eternal salvation" requires belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is tantamount to saying that the blood of the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world had no real value until after the gospel was preached and believed in ?

==The Gospel that our Lord commanded us to preach contained His death and resurrection (Lk 24:45-48), the Gospel that the Apostles preached contained the death and resurrection (Acts 2:22-24, 17:1-3, 17:30-31), the Gospel that saves us eternally containes the death and resurrection (1Cor 15:1-4). The Apostle Paul is very clear, in 1Cor 15:1-4, that those who do not hold fast to the teaching of the Gospel are not truly saved (1Cor 15:2). The Gospel is what he preached to the Corinthians and it was the Gospel that they recieved (1Cor 15:1-2a). That Gospel contained the death and resurrection of our Lord. To preach "a gospel" believing that a person does not have to believe in the death and resurrection of our Lord is to contradict Scripture.

when the gospel reaches the ears of an elect sinner, and the Spirit draws him to Christ thru the preaching of the gospel (which, of course means he is already a living soul, born again, if you will), then that sinner is REQUIRED to repent, he has the responsibility to repent, to turn from his sinful ungodly ways and creed, forsake his idol, and follow his Savior, in order for him to know the benefits of being a forgiven sinner, HERE IN TIME, and in order for him to be justified in his faith in Christ before man.

==Are you saying that a person is saved and then must believe, repent, etc?

Do you believe that a person can be saved even if they deny the resurrection of Jesus as long as they believe in Jesus as the guarantor of eternal life?

 

[jcjordan]

The biggest issue I have with GEC is that they propose that a person can be saved by God and it be possible that they display no evidence of a changed life. I used to attend a church that had ties to the GEC and this is the primary reason for my leaving. They deny that some can be saved and have a heart change that takes place. To me, this is a heresy that is helping many go to hell. They seem overly obsessed with giving assurance of salvation to those who should have no assurance.

 

[Martin]

The biggest issue I have with GEC is that they propose that a person can be saved by God and it be possible that they display no evidence of a changed life.

==Certainly that is a problem with the extreme free grace position (Wilkin, Hodges, etc). Mainstream free grace folks such as Stanley, Ryrie, and others will admit that there must be at least some change in lifestyle. I would say that that there must be a change in lifestyle (1Jn 3:9-10).

To me, this is a heresy that is helping many go to hell. They seem overly obsessed with giving assurance of salvation to those who should have no assurance.

==Can't argue with that.

 

[pinoybaptist]

==The Gospel that our Lord commanded us to preach contained His death and resurrection (Lk 24:45-48), the Gospel that the Apostles preached contained the death and resurrection (Acts 2:22-24, 17:1-3, 17:30-31), the Gospel that saves us eternally containes the death and resurrection (1Cor 15:1-4). The Apostle Paul is very clear, in 1Cor 15:1-4, that those who do not hold fast to the teaching of the Gospel are not truly saved (1Cor 15:2). The Gospel is what he preached to the Corinthians and it was the Gospel that they recieved (1Cor 15:1-2a). That Gospel contained the death and resurrection of our Lord. To preach "a gospel" believing that a person does not have to believe in the death and resurrection of our Lord is to contradict Scripture.

I agree with all these Scriptures. And as a Primitive Baptist, I do not, have never, and will never separate the death, life, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the gospel, neither will I hesitate to teach about these truths.

However, again, as I have said before, belief in these truths is not a pre-requisite to one's eternal salvation, or to one's sonship.

Belief and adherence to and in these truths is evidence of a faith given to the believing sinner by his Father in heaven. Jesus told Peter: "blessed art thou, Simon bar jona....but by my Father which is in heaven".

One's sonship is not based on these truths but on the will of the Father and the work of the Son which are both irrespective of the elect child's location on earth, or his theology, doctrine, or creed.

All I have been trying to say from the get go is that eternal salvation is not timely salvation.

Eternal salvation has no pre-requisites. Timely salvation has pre-requisites. Eternal salvation is based solely and purely on the work of the Christ of God. Timely salvation is based on one's obedience to the gospel.

An illustration pehaps which could convey what I mean is being an Israelite. One has no choice in this. One is either born a Gentile, of the Nations, or an Israelite, a Hebrew.

To the Israelites, God's message thru His spokesman was : Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.

An erring or rebellious Israelite may go his own way and woship other gods but he remains an Israelite and is not stricken off the roster of his tribe.

So with God's elect.

He has no choice in it. He did not choose to be among the elect. He did not command God to regenerate him. It was God's will for him. When he hears God's spokesman say "have faith in Him who saved you" he can either obey or disobey. At that point he has free will. His wrong exercise of his free will does not cause God to disown him. After all, was God surprised at this rebellious sinner's decision ? God was not surprised that Israel went after other gods. In fact, He foretold it through Moses.

The difference, of course, between Israel and the elect of God is that nagtional Israel is a country with borders, while the true Israel is a country or a city without borders whose citizens are everywhere on this world.

Are you saying that a person is saved and then must believe, repent, etc?

Like I said, there is a difference between "saved" because of the work of Christ and because of Christ alone, and "saved" because of obedience to the gospel and faith in Christ.

Picture the jews whom Paul and the Apostles reached. Were they saved and redeemed because, first, they repented and believed or did they repent and believe because they were saved and redeemed first.

 

[pinoybaptist]

The biggest issue I have with GEC is that they propose that a person can be saved by God and it be possible that they display no evidence of a changed life.

In a way, I agree with them. Take a good hard look at the bamboo curtain, if you will. Communist China.
Are you saying that God had no children in that country at all while it was closed to the world ?
I would say he did have children in that country. However, there was no opportunity for the gospel to be preached and obeyed here on earth.
But whoever God's children in that country were in that time, were saved for glorifying God in heaven.

Now, if after the gospel was preached, and there are those who say they believe they have been saved and are one of God's own, yet display no changes in the way they think of God and in their lives, then that would be a big, big question mark for those kinds of people.

Obedience to the gospel will bring changes.
As a matter of fact, a testimony of grace is one we require before one is admitted to membership in the church.

 

[psalms109:31]

chosen

No one was chosen before the foundation of the world but Jesus.We were chosen in Christ, being chosen in Christ the day of our faith we to because of Jesus was chosen before the foundation of the world was saved only because of being in Him.

In this there is a prerequisite before we enter grace, faith. God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and He made us who believe the messenger. We have good news and whosoever believes in Jesus shall be saved.

Our faith comes from God through the words of Jesus, but just like the young rich ruler we can walk away from grace that God is giving to all men. Why, because God loved the world that He sent His Son and God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

In the thread I began When Unity is Treason Martin wrote the following

==GES and Bob Wilkin do not deny that Jesus died on the cross to save sinners (etc). What they deny is that people must believe that in order to be saved. Notice in the statement above what is said and what is not said. What is said is that in order to be saved a person must believe in the Lord Jesus. What is not said is that a person must believe in His death and resurrection.

Martin has this exactly right, but it gets eve worse. They insist the lost man does not have to know, understand or believe in the deity, death or resurrection of Christ, but can still be born again. They also allow for the lost man to consciously reject the deity of Christ and still if that lost man says he believes in whoever he thinks Jesus is will give him eternal life, Wilkin, Hodges and the GES in insist he has been born again. They think denial of Christ’s deity is something to deal with in discipleship.

Here are quotes from Bob Wilkin (exec Dir of GES), then Jeremy Myers (former GES staff member).

What if the word “gospel” doesn’t ever mean the saving message? Now hang with me hear. I gave this same message, but I didn’t say quite this, a little over a month ago in Omaha at a Regional we had there. And what I suggested is that the term “gospel” rarely, if ever, means, “What must I believe to have eternal life? What must I believe to be saved? What must I do to have, to go to heaven, to be sure I’ll be in the kingdom?” But in the intervening time as I’ve been reflecting on it etcetera, I realized that we should go further than saying, “It’s rare that this term refers to the saving message.” I’m now of the opinion it never refers specifically to “What must I believe to have eternal life?” (Bob Wilkin, Gospel Means Good News, Grace Evangelical Society Southern California Regional Conference, August 24, 2007)

The Gospel of John, which does not contain the word gospel, tells us over and over what people must do to receive everlasting life: believe in Jesus for everlasting life (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; etc.) You do not have to believe the gospel to receive everlasting life, you only have to believe in Jesus for everlasting life. (Jeremy D. Myers, “The Gospel is More Than “Faith Alone in Christ Alone,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 19 [Autumn 2006]: 51

These men are heretics of the first order. If want another documented list of heretical statements from GES/Crossless gospel advocates read, Consistent Free Grace Evangelism?


LM

 

[Maestroh]

Much To Be Said

I know that this has been mentioned on this board before, but Saturday I got the latest copy of the Grace Evangelical Society's "Grace In Focus" news letter. While it is not news to me that Bob Wilkin is a heretic, the boldness of his heresy is shocking. In an article he titled "Scavenger Hunt Salvation Without a List", Dr. Wilkin states:

"To be born again, eternally saved, all one needs to do is believe that Jesus Christ guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it..(passage list)..What about the virgin birth, the Trinity, Jesus' bodily resurrection, Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, Jesus' substitutionary death on the cross, Jesus' sinless life, Jesus' miracles, the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit, the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, the hypostatic union, and on son? Knowing these things certainly makes it easier to believe in Jesus for eternal life. But does it follow that we must believe these things to be saved? No."

If Wilkin's point is that one does not have to have 'perfect theology' to be saved then I would agree with him wholeheartedly. It seems to me, however, that there is another problem here.

Note his verbiage: "All one needs to do is believe that Christ guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe Him for it."

Could not an atheist do that? An atheist could believe 'that Christ guarantees everlasting life to all who believe in Him for it' - without actually BELIEVING in Him for it.

But that's probably NOT what Wilkin means, right?

Furthermore, isn't the best-known LS advocate John MacArthur? I have Johnny Mac on tape explicitly stating that NOBODY understands those issues as he should upon coming to salvation - and that even the thief on the cross knew enough to be saved but would hardly fall into the theologian category.

I think Dr. Wilkin PROBABLY means that being saved constitutes actually BELIEVING in Christ, right? Not believing 'a set of facts.'

Then again....Zane Hodges basically does say that.

 

[Maestroh]

This Is A Straw Man To Say The Least

So, following your argument, you can say then that when you witness to someone about Christ, and that someone avers or professes that Christ is his Savior and that he or she believes that Christ saved him or her, that person's salvation is not really "there yet" until that person fully understands the life, death, burial and resurrection of Christ and believes them as well as believe that Christ is the Savior and no other ?

What saith the Scriptures?

NIV I Cor. 15:1-4
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,


Hardly the words of someone who found CONTENT of belief trivial.


Now I know Wilkin has come up with some exegetical gymnastics....saved 'really means' sanctification.

But surely you know that someone saying 'really means' usually means 'I don't believe what's written.'

 

[Maestroh]

Let's Go Further...

Error, yes. But which "saved" ? Romans 10:9 which you quoted refers to Jews who were in doctrinal error (verses 1 and 2). Now, what kind of "saved" is Paul talking about ? Is it eternally "saved", or is it "teachingly" and "doctrinallY" saved.

Apparently, it cannot be the former, because Paul has constantly asserted that salvation is OF the Lord (just as you do), all of grace, not of works (if not of works, then I guess it will not be a strawman to say "not of doctrine or theology" either).
.

Now I'm gonna say this up front - I am sick and tired of you folks borrowing Zane Hodges' exegesis of this as if it is the final word. He pulled this in 'Absolutely Free.' I recently did an exegetical paper on this and used the works of four Free Gracers - Hodges, Ryrie, Wilkin, and Dillow. I perused five books by the first one, two by the second, three by the third, and 'The Reign of the Servant Kings.' So that's ELEVEN books I read on this subject. Here's what we have:

1) Hodges does his exegesis on AF. The late S. Lewis Johnston, Jr. referred to Hodges' interpretation of these verses as 'voodoo exegesis.'
2) Ryrie doesn't even mention it. (In fairness, I did not use his study Bible, so perhaps one of you can tell us what he says it means).
3) Wilkin referred the reader to the exegesis of Hodges and another guy whose name escapes me at the moment (Larry something) - I'm at work and don't have my resources in front of me.
4) Dillow points the reader to Hodges.

So how does Hodges do his exegesis?

He front loads his investigation. He first makes the asinine claim that 'calling on the Lord' (10:13) can ONLY be done by ALREADY saved people - and therefore, whatever Romans 10:9-10 is saying, it CANNOT be saying that confession has anything to do with eternal life. (Note: I'm guessing Hodges hopes I don't notice that when Peter said the same thing in Acts 2, he was talking to LOST people).

Hodges then goes further: the reason the text can't mean exactly what it says is because John never mentions confession. And since John's gospel is 'the only book that tells us how to be saved' - the only 'evangelistic gospel' they call it - then it CANNOT mean what it says.

Finally - it CANNOT mean what it says (saith Hodges) because that would contradict 'faith alone.' (Hodges nor any other GES folks seem to be bothered by the fact that while they DEMAND 'one verse' that says 'x,' there is not one verse that says salvation is 'by faith alone,' either. Please note I am NOT denying the concept; I'm simply saying that they have a set of double standards that Stevie Wonder could see).

So now let's look at ALL of Romans 10.

Note that chapters 9-11 deal with whether or not God has revoked his promises to Israel.

1Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation.
2For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.

3For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.


If they don't know God's righteousness but seek to establish their own, is it fair to call these folks born again at all? Isn't justification the declaration of one righteous?

4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

5For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.

6But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down),

7or 'WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?' (that is, to (J)bring Christ up from the dead)."

8But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,

9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

END QUOTATION

Keep in mind that Paul makes it abundantly clear that this belief RESULTS in righteousness. He's not talking about some sort of physical deliverance from danger here. He is talking about righteousness and it's END RESULT of final salvation.


ONLY SOMEONE WITH AN AGENDA TO PROTECT WOULD BOTHER TO ARUGE IN THIS SPECIOUS WAY


Now does this contradict 'faith alone?'

Maybe Wilkin and Hodges ought to tell us what Luther meant when he coined the term - and then use it as Luther did rather than prostitute the term according to their misunderstanding.

 

[nodak]

Hmm--from what read on the GES website statement of faith and other articles there, they agree that good works should follow salvation.

The issue is that Lordship salvation is making works a requirement for salvation.

Pure Roman Catholic teaching.

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

Now I'm gonna say this up front - I am sick and tired of you folks borrowing Zane Hodges' exegesis of this as if it is the final word. He pulled this in 'Absolutely Free.' I recently did an exegetical paper on this and used the works of four Free Gracers - Hodges, Ryrie, Wilkin, and Dillow. I perused five books by the first one, two by the second, three by the third, and 'The Reign of the Servant Kings.' So that's ELEVEN books I read on this subject. Here's what we have:

1) Hodges does his exegesis on AF. The late S. Lewis Johnston, Jr. referred to Hodges' interpretation of these verses as 'voodoo exegesis.'
2) Ryrie doesn't even mention it. (In fairness, I did not use his study Bible, so perhaps one of you can tell us what he says it means).
3) Wilkin referred the reader to the exegesis of Hodges and another guy whose name escapes me at the moment (Larry something) - I'm at work and don't have my resources in front of me.
4) Dillow points the reader to Hodges.

So how does Hodges do his exegesis?

He front loads his investigation. He first makes the asinine claim that 'calling on the Lord' (10:13) can ONLY be done by ALREADY saved people - and therefore, whatever Romans 10:9-10 is saying, it CANNOT be saying that confession has anything to do with eternal life. (Note: I'm guessing Hodges hopes I don't notice that when Peter said the same thing in Acts 2, he was talking to LOST people).

Hodges then goes further: the reason the text can't mean exactly what it says is because John never mentions confession. And since John's gospel is 'the only book that tells us how to be saved' - the only 'evangelistic gospel' they call it - then it CANNOT mean what it says.

Finally - it CANNOT mean what it says (saith Hodges) because that would contradict 'faith alone.' (Hodges nor any other GES folks seem to be bothered by the fact that while they DEMAND 'one verse' that says 'x,' there is not one verse that says salvation is 'by faith alone,' either. Please note I am NOT denying the concept; I'm simply saying that they have a set of double standards that Stevie Wonder could see).

So now let's look at ALL of Romans 10.

Note that chapters 9-11 deal with whether or not God has revoked his promises to Israel.

1Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation.
2For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.

3For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.


If they don't know God's righteousness but seek to establish their own, is it fair to call these folks born again at all? Isn't justification the declaration of one righteous?

4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

5For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.

6But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down),

7or 'WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?' (that is, to (J)bring Christ up from the dead)."

8But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,

9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

END QUOTATION

Keep in mind that Paul makes it abundantly clear that this belief RESULTS in righteousness. He's not talking about some sort of physical deliverance from danger here. He is talking about righteousness and it's END RESULT of final salvation.


ONLY SOMEONE WITH AN AGENDA TO PROTECT WOULD BOTHER TO ARUGE IN THIS SPECIOUS WAY


Now does this contradict 'faith alone?'

Maybe Wilkin and Hodges ought to tell us what Luther meant when he coined the term - and then use it as Luther did rather than prostitute the term according to their misunderstanding.

Good post Brother!

 

[Maestroh]

Please Demonstrate For Me

Hmm--from what read on the GES website statement of faith and other articles there, they agree that good works should follow salvation.

The issue is that Lordship salvation is making works a requirement for salvation.

Pure Roman Catholic teaching.

I want you to give me a quotation from John MacArthur that says anything close to "Works are a requirement for salvation."

This is the typical misunderstanding I find in this whole thing. Zane Hodges - demonstrating among other things that vocabulary is not his strong point - argued that when LSers say 'works FOLLOW salvation' as a CONSEQUENCE, they really mean a CONDITION.

I'll be honest with you - if a guy is that naive (or that deceptive), I don't have much use for his teaching at all.

Now - Mac does mix up the discipleship/salvation thing. I would concur with that (although it might be a good question to ask which epistles were written to 'the non-disciples').

But where does Mac say, "Do works and be saved."

This is what I've heard Bob Wilkin SAY he says, but everything I've read on Mac says that works are an outgrowth of salvation.

 

[Maestroh]

Thank You

Good post Brother!

God bless,

M

 

[Maestroh]

Semantics

Hmm--from what read on the GES website statement of faith and other articles there, they agree that good works should follow salvation.

The issue is that Lordship salvation is making works a requirement for salvation.

Pure Roman Catholic teaching.

The GES site says they SHOULD - but if they don't, well, who cares?

Go live a life of debauchery, become an 'unbelieving believer' - and cruise into heaven.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

But where does Mac say, "Do works and be saved."

He doesn’t, not in plain terms.

What is very clear from JM is that according to LS the lost man must make an upfront commitment to the good works (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again child of God. Some say, which I agree, that MacArthur “frontloads” faith with commitment to surrender, submission and obedience in “exchange” and as a condition FOR the reception of eternal life.

Hodges, Wilkin (Grace Evangelical Society) tried to answer LS, but they went way too far in their reductionist theology and gave the church a heretical Crossless/Deityless gospel.


LM

 

[pinoybaptist]

<snip>
What is very clear from JM is that according to LS the lost man must make an upfront commitment to the good works (Eph. 2:10) expected of a born again child of God. Some say, which I agree, that MacArthur “frontloads” faith with commitment to surrender, submission and obedience in “exchange” and as a condition FOR the reception of eternal life.

<snip>

LM

And, with due respects, what do you say, LM ?
with regards to reception of eternal life, I mean ?

 

[Lou Martuneac]

What does the Bible say?

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God," (1 John 5:11-13).

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," (John 3:14-16).

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord," (Rom. 6:23).

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Nailing Shut the GES Crossless Gospel Coffin

Dear BB Readers:

The 5th installment of The Issue of Incongruity: Actual or Artificial has been posted. The theme of the series has been to address and answer this question:

“Does the Bible allow for an incongruity or difference between the CONTENT OF THE GOSPEL message which is to be faithfully PREACHED and the content of SAVING FAITH post-Calvary which must be BELIEVED in order to have eternal life today?”

Verse by verse the series continues to nail shut the coffin on the egregious errors of the Grace Evangelical Society’s Crossless Gospel.

This weeks verse(s) is 1 Cor. 2:1-5.

And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

LM