The Grace Evangelical Society Is Heretical

[nodak]

maestroh--you are aware, are you not, that Paul was accused of the same thing you accuse the free gracer's of?

Guess not much has changed.

 

[Maestroh]

Dear Lou

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

Lou,

I receive your installments on the email, and I do want to thank you for doing so. You and I have spoken on the phone before as well (Wilkin spoke at my church), and I find you to be kind in this thing - I'm also appreciative of your constructive criticism of the GES.

That said - what you state here is what I find all too often in the entire argument. FG folks (and the ones I know - in fairness - are all Hodges-Wilkin disciples) use the allegation of 'front loading' the gospel (Dillow does this in his 'Reign of the Servant Kings').

But much ink is spilled pounding straw men. This past semester I took J. Dwight Pentecost's class on the life of Christ. He went off onto a ten-minute rant w/o ever mentioning MacArthur and said that folks who taught 'lordship salvation' claim that if you didn't go to church and make a commitment blah blah blah, you would 'become lost.' That's interesting since John MacArthur does, in fact, believe in eternal security.

Furthermore - his tapes have made VERY CLEAR that he is not asking for an 'up front' commitment but seeing it as the RESULT of the redeemed heart. Whether he's inconsistent, of course, is another issue.

Yet Zane Hodges does this stuff as well. I read how he painstakingly argued (and I blew it out of the water in a Romans paper for DTS) that when LS folks see works as a CONSEQUENCE of salvation, what they 'really mean' is CONDITION.

Quite interesting in light of the fact that the dictionary does not confound the two but this seemingly doesn't stop Zane Hodges.

As I pointed out: Divorce is a CONSEQUENCE of adultery (can be). The only CONDITION necessary for divorce is marriage. How a guy with a Ph.D. can misunderstand such a simple concept is beyond my ability to comprehend.

But you admit as much when you state MacArthur doesn't actually SAY that one must do works. In fact, he explicitly DENIES (in the intro to TGATJ) that works are necessary for salvation.

Not referring to you - but it is my deep suspicion that folks like Hodges and Wilkin need to distort or isolate comments by MacArthur in order to sell books. I've heard so many false things said about MacArthur by a lot of FG folks (esp. GES) that it's difficult to take any criticism seriously when it comes from the GES.

Finally - thank you for your work in presenting a FG perspective that doesn't resort to the minimalism of the Hodges-Wilkin-Dillow crowd.

 

[Maestroh]

Oh, Spare Me...

maestroh--you are aware, are you not, that Paul was accused of the same thing you accuse the free gracer's of?

Guess not much has changed.

Are you telling me that Paul thought the one could be saved without believing in the Resurrection as Wilkin has said?

That must be news to Paul.

The problem - as I see it - is very simple. Some human beings are in the assurance business to folks who live like the devil when such assurance is solely the responsbility of the Holy Spirit.

Keep this in mind: the MOMENT a person admits that a person can have a FALSE assurance about salvation and works do NOT result inevitably - he has admitted LS is true.

Ryrie has done this. Dillow did this. Even Hodges finally did it in 'Absolutely Free.'

Only Wilkin is the lone holdout. He likes to ask folks how they know they're saved. You know what I'd ask him - how does he know his assurance isn't FALSE?

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Maestroh:

Thanks for the comments and I do remember the good call we had.

MacArthur wrote,

“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. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom. Seen through the eyes of this world, it is as high a price as anyone can pay. But from a kingdom perspective, it is really no sacrifice at all.”

Following is John MacArthur’s definition of saving faith from the original edition of The Gospel According to Jesus:

“Saving faith is a commitment to leave sin and follow Jesus at all costs. Jesus takes no one unwilling to come on those terms.”

From the Revised & Expanded Edition, John MacArthur reworked the above statement as follows,

“Saving faith does not recoil from the demand to forsake sin and follow Jesus Christ at all costs. Those who find his terms unacceptable cannot come at all.”

Again from his original edition, MacArthur writes,

“Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. . . . It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith.”

Those statements are made in regard to what MacArthur believes is necessary for the reception of eternal life. he speaks of the content of saving faith, the faith that results in salvation. “Pay the ultimate price FOR salvation…,” that is a man-centered, works based message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

This is not isolating comments, these represent a theme that run like a thread through all of MacArthur’s major LS apologetics. BTW, much of what he writes in these books is sound and helpful. The egregious errors are not found on every page, but the errors are there.

He does frontload faith with “commitment” in “exchange” for eternal life.

I post JM’s own writing so that those who cry misrepresentation, and/or Straw Man are shown to be grasping at straws because they have no answer to negate the force and obvious meaning of what MacArthur has written.

BTW, I am reviewing MacArthur's anniversary edition of TGATJ. I will post that review at my blog in a week or so. I will let you all know about it here.

You might like to read Ominous Signs of Lordship's Coming Storm. It is written from a historical perspective by a man who had a view of JM's teaching just prior to the release of the original TGATJ.


LM

 

[nodak]

I am saying Paul said he was accused of preaching licientiousness--that since one was saved sin did not matter. He did not preach that, and neither do free grace preachers.

What they preach is that salvation is by grace through faith and that not of works. Assurance is based on God's honor and faithfulness rather than examining our works.

If we examine our works for proof, how much works are enough?

If I tell a homeless street addict Jesus will save him, he gets saved, and no longer does many of the bad things he did, but still does some being caught up in addiction at that point, are you saying he is not really saved?

I had a dear friend caught up in alcohol and cocaine and beating his wife and step kids. LS bunch kept trying to lead him to the Lord. Fearing he could not leave off his addictions, he refused.

FG guy came along, told him the simple truth that all are sinners, penalty of sin is death and hell, but that Jesus came to save all who would just trust Him for salvation. He did.

Not much changed----at first. Then he decided he "disliked" cocaine.

Soon it was alcohol that went. Then violence.

That family was magnificently put back together and serves the Lord today.

But it never would have happened telling that man Jesus won't save a sinner unwilling to be cleaned up. How in the world can an unregenerate man even WANT to be willing to be willing?

And what damage would have been in done if in those first weeks saved he had been counselled to doubt his salvation since it sure did not show?

As it was, KNOWING he was saved even if he remained an addicted jerk (his term) freed him to begin to relax in the Savior's love. And that made him WANT to change in response.

Free grace salvation all the way seems to me the Biblical way. Now, discipleship IS a Lordship issue.

 

[Free Gracer]

Perseverance of the Saints is Works-Contingent salvation

Yet Zane Hodges does this stuff as well. I read how he painstakingly argued (and I blew it out of the water in a Romans paper for DTS) that when LS folks see works as a CONSEQUENCE of salvation, what they 'really mean' is CONDITION.

Here are a few quotes when some Calvinists let their guards down:

"Heaven can only be reached by continuing along the sole path that leads thither, namely, the 'Narrow Way.' Those who persevere not in faith and holiness, love and obedience, will assuredly perish" (A.W. Pink, "Eternal Security", chapter 3, online edition).

"There is a deadly and damnable heresy being widely propagated today to the effect that, if a sinner truly accepts Christ as his personal Saviour, no matter how he lives afterwards, he cannot perish. That is a satanic lie, for it is at direct variance with the teaching of the Word of truth. Something more than believing in Christ is necessary to ensure the soul's reaching heaven." (A.W. Pink as quoted by Iain H. Murray in "The Life of Arthur W. Pink" pgs 248-249)

"...we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith." (John Piper "TULIP: What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism...", pg 25)

"I was asked the question about a year ago by a group of pastors in in Pennsylvania... 'What do you think is the one doctrine that is the most destructive in the life of the church...today? And I said, the doctrine of Eternal Security... God justifies, but man must have faith and he must obey.... Romans 2:13-14, when it says the one who obeys the law is justified, it means exactly that. That is not a hypothetical verse, ladies and gentlemen, the way many Protestants have read it. And when James 2:13-14 says, 'The doers of the law shall be justified,' it means the doers of the law shall be justified. That's why Paul and James are not in conflict...Let me suggest [also] Ephesians 2:8-10...We are saved unto good works. They're necessary consequential works. Without them there is no salvation. Right?" (John Armstrong "Reflections from Jonathan Edwards on the Current Debate over Justification by Faith Alone").

"Reader, if there is a reserve in your obedience, you are on the way to hell" (A.W. Pink, "Studies on Saving Faith" Part 2, online edition)

"Neither the members of the church nor the elect can be saved unless they persevere in holiness. And they cannot persevere in holiness without continual watchfulness and effort." (Charles Hodge, "A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians", pg 181)

When push comes to shove, Reformed theology conditions eternal life on works. That they say works are necessary as the inevitable result of saving faith conclusively shows that they consider works absolutely necessary for final salvation. Their insistence that it is a "required necessary result" is meant to mask what they truly believe, for, as the long quote from Joseph Dillow from His book "The Reign of the Servant Kings" will show (see below), a necessary result for which we are responsible is the same as a condition.

Piper says, "We are not saved by faith plus works but by a faith that works." "The faith that alone justifies is never alone." Salvation is absolutely free "but will cost you everything" (MacArthur).

(Begin Joseph Dillow "The Reign of the Servant Kings")
----------
"When Reformed Theologians use such phrases as 'faith alone saves a man, but the faith that saves is not alone,' they are in fact unconsciously speaking nonsense. Terminology like "faith plus works does not save, but a faith that works does" is simply saying that faith plus works saves. The cleverness of the prose serves to conceal the fact. Proverbial sayings like this have been passed on in the theology textbooks for centuries. They seem to have explanatory power, and they certainly left opponents of the Reformed Theology system speechless, but in reality they are not only empty of meaning but contradictory. They are simply ways of saying that true faith necessarily results in works, but it is the faith, not the resulting works, which saves. This, however, is quite confusing. If the works are a necessary result of the faith and if a man cannot be saved without them, then the works, in fact, a condition for salvation. If they are not present, the man will perish. Necessary results for which we are responsible are the same as conditions.

A simple illustration may suffice here. "Consider the marriage requirements in this country. If a man is to get married, he must have a blood test. Now it is clear that someone could break the law or, perhaps, some state does not require this. However, the author shall create a fictional world where this is always true. Then we can say the condition of getting married is a mutual commitment to do so. Furthermore, the necessary and inevitable result of that commitment is a trip to the hospital to get a blood test. In addition, getting a blood test is a condition of getting married. A necessary result is no different than a condition! I could then observe to a friend that, “A blood test is a condition of getting married.” He may then say, “No, securing a blood test is not a condition of getting married but a necessary result of a commitment to get married.” But here now you may be able to see that the blood test is both a result and a condition."
----------
(End Dillow)

So the same with works. If works are a necessary result of saving faith, and if those works aren’t present then the person doesn’t go to heaven (showing that he was never truly saved), then those works become a condition for that salvation.

Here is the real rub:

If there is no works, there is no heaven.

It could be termed : "Bear or Burn Theology" (works-contingent salvation)

Antonio

 

[EdSutton]

Lou,

I receive your installments on the email, and I do want to thank you for doing so. You and I have spoken on the phone before as well (Wilkin spoke at my church), and I find you to be kind in this thing - I'm also appreciative of your constructive criticism of the GES.

That said - what you state here is what I find all too often in the entire argument. FG folks (and the ones I know - in fairness - are all Hodges-Wilkin disciples) use the allegation of 'front loading' the gospel (Dillow does this in his 'Reign of the Servant Kings').

But much ink is spilled pounding straw men. This past semester I took J. Dwight Pentecost's class on the life of Christ. He went off onto a ten-minute rant w/o ever mentioning MacArthur and said that folks who taught 'lordship salvation' claim that if you didn't go to church and make a commitment blah blah blah, you would 'become lost.' That's interesting since John MacArthur does, in fact, believe in eternal security.

Furthermore - his tapes have made VERY CLEAR that he is not asking for an 'up front' commitment but seeing it as the RESULT of the redeemed heart. Whether he's inconsistent, of course, is another issue.

Yet Zane Hodges does this stuff as well. I read how he painstakingly argued (and I blew it out of the water in a Romans paper for DTS) that when LS folks see works as a CONSEQUENCE of salvation, what they 'really mean' is CONDITION.

Quite interesting in light of the fact that the dictionary does not confound the two but this seemingly doesn't stop Zane Hodges.

As I pointed out: Divorce is a CONSEQUENCE of adultery (can be). The only CONDITION necessary for divorce is marriage. How a guy with a Ph.D. can misunderstand such a simple concept is beyond my ability to comprehend.

But you admit as much when you state MacArthur doesn't actually SAY that one must do works. In fact, he explicitly DENIES (in the intro to TGATJ) that works are necessary for salvation.

Not referring to you - but it is my deep suspicion that folks like Hodges and Wilkin need to distort or isolate comments by MacArthur in order to sell books. I've heard so many false things said about MacArthur by a lot of FG folks (esp. GES) that it's difficult to take any criticism seriously when it comes from the GES.

Finally - thank you for your work in presenting a FG perspective that doesn't resort to the minimalism of the Hodges-Wilkin-Dillow crowd.

I assume you were/are referring to Professor Zane C. Hodges, here, with the bolded statement. FTR, unless he has obtained it in the last few years, and I am not aware of it, Mr. Zane C. Hodges does not have a Ph.D., although he does possess a Th.M.. Dr. Robert Wilkin, does have an earned doctorate, which is a Th.D., I believe. And I have no idea about the academic attainments of Lou Martuneac, although we do know each other, and he and I basically agree with one another, as we found out when we were able to meet and converse in person, last year. Lou Martuneac could preach and teach in any church or school I might ever be associated with, at any time, as far as I'm concerned, and I would happily sit under his teaching. (A 'free' plug, Lou!)

I do not know Jody Dillow, although I have conversed by phone, in the past, at some length with both Robert Wilkin (more than once) and Zane Hodges, and at my own expense, I would add.

Ed

 

[Alive in Christ]

This is simply stunning to me.

To think that those of the Grace Evangelical Society are...on this thread...being CONDEMNED and labeled HERETICS is just unbelieveable. Stunning.

Here is their "statement of beliefs" from their web-site...

"Salvation

The sole condition for receiving everlasting life is faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ, who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man’s sin and rose bodily from the dead (John 3:16-18; 6:47; Acts 16:31).

Faith is the conviction that something is true. To believe in Jesus (“he who believes in Me has everlasting life”) is to be convinced that He guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it (John 4:14 ; 5:24 ; 6:47 ; 11:26 ; 1 Tim 1:16 ).

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 part of, faith as a condition for receiving everlasting life (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 (Eph 2:8-9; John 4:10 ; Rev 22:17 ).

Assurance

Assurance of everlasting life is certainty that one is eternally secure simply by faith in Jesus. Assurance of everlasting life is based only on the promise God makes in His Word that everyone who believes in Jesus Christ alone possesses everlasting life (John 5:24; 1 John 5:9-13). Good works, which can and should follow regeneration, are not necessary for a person to have assurance of everlasting life (Eph 2:10 ; Titus 3:8).

Assurance is of the essence of believing in Jesus for everlasting life. That is, as long as a person believes in Jesus for everlasting life, he knows he has everlasting life (John 5:24 ; 6:35 , 47; 11:27 ; 1 John 5:9-13).

Discipleship (Growing in Christ)

The ultimate goal of the Holy Spirit’s work in the believer’s life is to produce spiritual maturity reflected in consistent Christlike behavior and attitudes (Gal 5:22-25; Luke 14:25-33; Col 1:23-29). Therefore, obedience to the Word of God, while not necessary for obtaining everlasting life, is the essential responsibility of each Christian (Rom 6:12-23; Heb 5:13-14; 1 Cor 2:14–3:4). However, the Bible does not teach that this obedience will be manifested in all believers. If a believer does not yield to the ministry of the Holy Spirit in his experience, failure will result, evidenced by sinful acts or even prolonged disobedience (1 Cor 10:1-13; Gal 5:16-21).

Motivation

The believer is assured of everlasting life and is thus eternally secure, since that life is guaranteed by the Lord Jesus Christ to all who believe in Him, and is based upon His substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection (John 10:28-29; Rom 8:38-39). Therefore, it is inconsistent with the gospel and with Scripture to seek to gain or keep everlasting life by godly living. The Scriptures, however, do present several motivations for obedience in the Christian life.

1. A powerful motivation for living the Christian life is gratitude to God for saving us by His grace (Rom 12:1-2; 2 Cor 5:14 -15; Gal 2:20 ).

2. Believers should also be motivated by the knowledge that their heavenly Father both blesses obedience and disciplines disobedience in His children (Heb 12:3-11; Lev 26:1-45). God is not mocked. Whatever a person sows, that he also reaps (Gal 6:7).

3. Finally, every Christian must stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, not to determine his eternal destiny, for that is already set, but to assess the quality of his Christian life on earth (2 Cor 5:10; Rev 22:12). Anticipating either reward or loss of reward at the Judgment Seat should also motivate believers to perseverance and to faithfulness to God’s revealed will (1 Cor 3:10 -17, 9:24 -27; Jas 5:8-9; 1 John 2:28 ). One’s capacity to glorify Jesus will forever be based on how faithful he was in his stewardship in this life (Luke 19:17 , 19, 22-26).

*Grace Evangelical Society is firmly committed to the fundamental doctrines of the historic Christian faith. Not all of those doctrines are delineated in this affirmation of belief."

And in light of THIS, from that statement...

"The sole condition for receiving everlasting life is faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ, who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man’s sin and rose bodily from the dead (John 3:16-18; 6:47; Acts 16:31).

...how can ANYONE say that they are propagating a CROSSLESS GOSPEL?????

I am not familiar with anyone on this thread, but I would assume that everyone here is probably worthy of respect, and very biblically minded, as we all should be.

But...my GOODNESS, this comes across to me as "nit-picking" run amuck. They dont always witness with the same exact terminology that you do? SO WHAT? Its clear as a bell that their beliefs and convictions are scriptural as can be right up and down the line (the statement of beliefs).

They are preaching the same gospel and proclaiming the same Jesus. Oh, how this must grieve Him.

This seems to be hard core Fundamentalism taken to a very extreme level.

Although I am only familliar with Zane Hodges..(and his books are EXCELLANT)..I am sure that everyone involved with GES are our brothers and sisters, and fellow works in the harvest.

Why not treat them as such?

Rather than condemning, and labeling as heretics, brothers and sisters of ours...why not just leave them alone, of you cant fellowship with them?

Grace and peace to all.

(((EDIT))))

Well, I found something else on the Grace Evangelical Society website. They have a link to click if any visitors to the site are interested in being saved. (sort of a cyber salvation tract)

Here is what it says...(bolding mine)...

Jesus Christ said, "He who believes in Me has everlasting life" (John 6:47). He also said, "He who lives and believes in Me will never die." Eternal life is eternal.

Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the whole world (John 1:29). He has removed the sin barrier which separated us from God. However, we still lack spiritual life, eternal life. To get that life, we must simply believe in Jesus for it. There are no strings attached. Our eternal salvation is "not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Eph 2:9).

Simply believe in Jesus and He guarantees you will never die spiritually. You will go to heaven when you die, and spend eternity in God's kingdom. It really is that simple. That's why it's called Good News."

Crossless Gospel"???

I dont think so.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

This thread was opened by Martin to discuss the heretical views of the Grace Evangelical Society, namely Bob Wilkins’s Scavenger Hunt Without a List article. These vies are part of what is known as the Crossless or GES gospel. It also know as the Promise-Only, Minimalist Gospel, ReDefined Free Grace Theology.

Some of the most extreme and antithetical to Scripture views coming from GES members would be those of FreeGracer, Antonio.

Here is a sample of the kind of heresy as expressed by Antonio that typifies the teaching of Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and their shrinking cell of extremists in the GES.

“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!’” (Believe Christ’s Promise and You are Saved No Matter What Misconception You Hold, May 2006.)

Another reviewer had these comments in regard to the heresy of Antonio and GES.

Antonio da Rosa advocates the egregious heresy of syncretism*, one of the main obstacles for Christian missionaries worldwide. Sadly, Antonio affirms that a lost muslim syncretist can believe in the Muslim god Allah (who goes by the name "Jesus") and still receive eternal life! This would be unbelievable except for the fact that Antonio has clearly shipwrecked his faith (1 Tim. 1:19) and seared his conscience (1 Tim. 4:2).

In contrast to Antonio's affirmation, such a woman described above is definitely not saved because she has believed in the Muslim god Allah (who goes by the name "Jesus"); she has not believed in Christ. Such a false deity is "another Jesus" (2 Cor. 11:3-4), and such preaching is "another gospel" (Gal. 1:6-9).

Antonio’s statements are highly contradictory, unorthodox, unbiblical, and yes, heretical. Hodges truly preaches a non-contextual, non-historical, hypothetical, heretical, syncretistic, promise-only, and crossless/deityless gospel when he rips John 6:47 from God's Word and builds a doctrine on this “imagined” and “hypothetical” strange scenario of this Scripture washing ashore on a remote desert island.

Orthodox Christians and especially those of us in the Free Grace movement must oppose these heresies of Hodges, Wilkin, and da Rosa! We must "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Judge 3). We must have "the boldness in our God to speak . . . the Gospel of God amid much opposition" (1 Thess. 2:2).

To conclude I want BB readers to understand that they heresy expressed by GES is not representative of the doctrinal view of a great majority in the Free Grace community. Antonio attempts to present GES as if it is the voice of the FG movement at large, but this is a serious misnomer. That may have been true at one time, but with the on-going side into deepening heretical views by Hodges and Wilkin, many FG pastors/teachers have separated and continue to separate from GES.

See- Is "REDEFINED" Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?


LM

* "Syncretism: the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion." (dictionary.com)

“Syncretism consists of the attempt to reconcile disparate or contradictory beliefs, often while melding practices of various schools of thought.” (wikipedia.com)

 

[Lou Martuneac]

And I have no idea about the academic attainments of Lou Martuneac, although we do know each other, and he and I basically agree with one another, as we found out when we were able to meet and converse in person, last year. Lou Martuneac could preach and teach in any church or school I might ever be associated with, at any time, as far as I'm concerned, and I would happily sit under his teaching. (A 'free' plug, Lou!)Ed

Hi Ed:

That was mighty nice of you to post those kind remarks. As for the "academic attainments... "

B.A. from Michigan State University: Tele-Communcation
M.A. from Pensacola Christian College (PCC): Bible Exposition. Also taught for five years at PCC, then three years at the Bible college in Johannesburg.

When I am at conferences or special meetings (attending and/or speaking) and get around the men who have done the work to earn their advanced degrees I listen well to them. I am comfortable interacting, but really prefer to listen.

By the way, I have sat under Sunday School teachers with no formal theological training who were obviously endowed with the gift of teaching from the Lord. I can think of one right now, who is a business man in the insurance field. To listen to his expository teaching verse-by-verse you would think he had an earned M.Div. or better.

I will add, and I trust everyone understands: Academic/theological training does not guarantee orthodoxy. Although highly trained Hodges and Wilkin have fallen into and have become teachers of some of the most egregious errors the NT church has ever encountered from men in the body of Christ. The Apostle Paul warned that errors would creep in and be brought in from men within the church speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:28-31).

Late last year I wrote an article on this theme. Perverse Things Draw Away Disciples

The GES Crossless/Deityless teaching is as out of balance with the biblical plan of salvation from their extreme side of the theological pendulum swing as Lordship Salvation is from the opposite end of the swing.

Thanks again,


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Dear Alive (& glad you are):

You wrote,

They don't always witness with the same exact terminology that you do? SO WHAT? Its clear as a bell that their beliefs and convictions are scriptural...

Here is the "So What?"

The issue is NOT over what GES men personally believe about the death, resurrection and deity of Christ. It is NOT over what they believe made salvation possible. It is NOT over whether or NOT they might present His death on the cross in payment for our sins.

The issue and crux of the doctrinal controversy IS over GES teaching that the lost do not have to be aware of, understand or believe in the deity, death and/or resurrection of Christ, but can still be born again.​

That is, therefore a Crossless & Deityless gospel as far as the lost are concerned.

I am giving you benefit of the doubt, but I want you to understand that to suggest that the controversy is over what the GES men personally believe is a serious misunderstanding of the true nature of the controversy. Crossless advocates keep trumpeting this mantra to distract attention away from the true crux of their doctrinal error, which is the unsaved do not have to understand or believe anything about who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation.

Later, I will post a series of quotes from GES leaders that affirm their beliefs and convictions are unscriptural. They are in fact Crossless and Deityless.


LM

 

[pinoybaptist]

Dear Alive (& glad you are):


<snip>The issue and crux of the doctrinal controversy IS over GES teaching that the lost do not have to be aware of, understand or believe in the deity, death and/or resurrection of Christ, but can still be born again.

<snip>

LM

I am still trying to understand this issue, LM. So let me ask you this, in line with what you have written to "alive" and bolded. The Bible says in John 1:11-13 the following about those who received Jesus, and I understand this to mean his apostles and disciples during His time here on earth.

Here is what Scripture says:

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Now, "his own", apparently are the Jewish people, since Jesus Christ was a Jew by birth. "Received him not" I understand to be in reference to the Jewish people rejecting Him as the promised Messiah, and in the end, along with the Gentiles, crucifying Him.

"But as many as received him", of course, in the context of His being rejected by the majority, refer to those who eventually became His Apostles, disciples, and followers, and this would include the old man at the temple, who had waited for the promised salvation, as well as His "secret" friends among the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus, et al.

the rest of verse 12 we all understand.

However, verse 13, specifically says that these people were born again (fast forward past the other qualifiers or disqualifiers) by the will of God.
Now, note that none of these people were aware of His deity, His coming death, and resurrection, up until those events happened.

Are you saying that these people were never born again until they understood and accepted all these qualifiers ? That would make me wonder why, despite their unbelief and miscomprehensions, Jesus Christ would (1) seek them out after His resurrection, (2) call them brethren (3) single Peter out despite his denial of Him, and exclude all others ?

As a matter of fact, from what I understand you are saying, it appears that redemption and the finished work of Christ do not really mean anything until man understand and believe all these things, and the power of the Holy Spirit to regenerate His people is effectively hindered by the man's inability to understand and accept or believe these things.

That being the case, then the salvation of sinners began after the gospel was preached, and His redemptive work was limited to where the gospel was preached and believed in.

Are these what you are saying ?

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Crossless: So Far as the Lost are Concerned

Alive:

Here are some of the quotes I referred to earlier.

“What they fail to understand is that biblical faith in Jesus is not faith that He existed, nor faith in His deity, nor even faith that He died for our sins and rose again. In the Bible, to believe in Jesus is to be convinced that He who died and rose again guarantees eternal life to all who simply believe in Him.” (Wilkin: Secure and Sure)

Wilkin (GES) say all you need to be convinced of is that Jesus guarantees eternal life, no matter who the unsaved thinks Jesus is. Wilkins’s identification of Jesus as the One who died and rose is for the benefit of the reader only, but is NOT part of the content of saving faith for the lost.

“Jesus made it clear that the only condition [for salvation] is being convinced that He guarantees eternal life to all who believe in Him. Add anything to that and you have a different gospel.” (Wilkin, JOTGES Autumn 1998)

Wilkin understands he is proclaiming a “different gospel,” but thinks he has the right one, which excludes belief in the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross for our sins.

“My view is that the Lord Jesus told us what the saving message is and we can’t err by proclaiming the message He proclaimed. Since He rarely even alluded to the cross or the resurrection in His evangelism, it can only be required to believe in it if Jesus’ method of evangelism is no longer valid. Of course, His method is not invalid.” (Wilkin, from an email to the Starks on 8/6/07)

“In John 11:25-27 , a pivotal expression of the saving message in John (compare John 20:31 ), we find no mention of sin or the cross. Jesus rarely used the words saved or salvation when He evangelized (see John 3:17 as a rare use). What the Lord Jesus referred to over and over again is everlasting life. So that is what I stress, though I do sometimes speak of eternal salvation.” (Wilkin, from an email to the Starks on 8/6/07)

The preceeding notes by Wilkin have previously appeared in the public forum

“Neither explicitly nor implicitly does the Gospel of John teach that a person must understand the cross to be saved. It just does not teach this.” (Zane Hodges: How to Lead People to Christ, Pt.1, JOTGES , Autumn 2000)

“In the first two chapters of his book [titled Road to Reward], Wilkin appropriately offers an evangelistic appeal to faith in Christ before delving deeply into the subject of rewards for Christians. However, there is a glaring and obvious omission in these two chapters: the death of Christ for our sins and His resurrection are NEVER mentioned—only appeals to believe in Christ as the guarantor of eternal life.” (http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/crossless.htm an analysis offered by Pastor Tom Stegall, a former GES member)

“In a subsequent book by Wilkin, Secure and Sure, he states no less than 113 times throughout the book in almost mantra-like fashion that a person receives eternal life simply by believing in Jesus for it, or some varied form of the same expression. Yet NEVER ONCE in his entire book, despite 113 occasions to do so, does Wilkin state that by believing in Jesus for eternal life he means someone must believe that Jesus is God-incarnate who died for his sins and rose again.” ( http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/crossless.htm an analysis offered by Pastor Tom Stegall, a former GES member)

There is no doubt that when it comes to what the lost must believe to be born again Hodges, Wilkin and GES strip the deity, death and resurection from the Gospel. They, therefore, are promoting a Crossless/Deityless gospel so far as the lost are concerned.

One final comment from my blog on this subject by Rachel, one of my partners in defense of the Gospel.

“1 Cor. 1 is pretty clear that Paul considers the message of the cross as indispensable to ‘the gospel,’ or what the lost must believe to be born again. Going even further, as has been noted several times at this blog and many others, Paul states in that passage that even though the message of ‘Christ crucified’ is a stumblingblock to some, he still preaches it. This is in direct opposition to the ‘crossless’ advocates, who love to tout the idea that their theology allows them the ‘freedom’ to take whatever avenue they think is best (including avoiding discussion of Jesus’ deity, death, or resurrection) to get people to their goal of belief that Jesus alone gives them eternal life.” (J. B. Hixson: “Crossless” Advocates Have Gone to Far!)

LM

 

[Alive in Christ]

Lou,

Here are your quotes from the Grace Evangelical Society folks, that you take issue with, and cause you to deem them heretics...

“What they fail to understand is that biblical faith in Jesus is not faith that He existed, nor faith in His deity, nor even faith that He died for our sins and rose again. In the Bible, to believe in Jesus is to be convinced that He who died and rose again guarantees eternal life to all who simply believe in Him.” (Wilkin: Secure and Sure)

I dont understand what the problem is that so distresses you with that. A person is born again when they encounter the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and they come to the end of there self sufficiency, or faith in other false paths to God, and are born again by embracing the person of Jesus Christ.

We dont pull them aside and give them a quiz on doctrine, telling him only an "A" will get them into heaven.

That would be a form of justification by works. Thats not the gospel. The gospel is justification through faith in Christ alone, apart from any works or merit on our part. We present Jesus Christ as their answer, and they either embrace Him or they dont.

If they DO embrace Him....their eyes are now open, and they can recieve spiritual truth. And they WILL embrace the spiritual truth that accompanies faith in Christ...in due time.

“Jesus made it clear that the only condition [for salvation] is being convinced that He guarantees eternal life to all who believe in Him. Add anything to that and you have a different gospel.”

And you disagree with that???? That is 100% true, friend!

“My view is that the Lord Jesus told us what the saving message is and we can’t err by proclaiming the message He proclaimed. Since He rarely even alluded to the cross or the resurrection in His evangelism, it can only be required to believe in it if Jesus’ method of evangelism is no longer valid. Of course, His method is not invalid.” (Wilkin, from an email to the Starks on 8/6/07)"

We have examples in the scriptures where people are presented with the opportunity to place their faith in Christ, with no other doctrinal points given at all. And the scriptures proclaim them born again. We have many cases where the gospel is clearly articulated, with faith in Christ being the only requierment.

All the other stuff will of course fall naturally in place in due time as it is presented.

"“In John 11:25-27 , a pivotal expression of the saving message in John (compare John 20:31 ), we find no mention of sin or the cross. Jesus rarely used the words saved or salvation when He evangelized (see John 3:17 as a rare use). What the Lord Jesus referred to over and over again is everlasting life. So that is what I stress, though I do sometimes speak of eternal salvation.” (Wilkin, from an email to the Starks on 8/6/07)"

And here is a perfect example! Here is the passage of scripture used in that example...

"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, though he may die, he shall live. And he who believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

Would you actually CORRECT Christ regarding His supposed incomplete presentation of the gospel there?

"“Neither explicitly nor implicitly does the Gospel of John teach that a person must understand the cross to be saved. It just does not teach this.” (Zane Hodges: How to Lead People to Christ, Pt.1, JOTGES , Autumn 2000)"

I agree. A lost person CAN NOT comprehend the cross. He doesnt have the necesarry ingrediant...the Holy Spirit.

"“In the first two chapters of his book [titled Road to Reward], Wilkin appropriately offers an evangelistic appeal to faith in Christ before delving deeply into the subject of rewards for Christians. However, there is a glaring and obvious omission in these two chapters: the death of Christ for our sins and His resurrection are NEVER mentioned—only appeals to believe in Christ as the guarantor of eternal life.”

You mean like this...

"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, though he may die, he shall live. And he who believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" ...Jesus Christ

"“In a subsequent book by Wilkin, Secure and Sure, he states no less than 113 times throughout the book in almost mantra-like fashion that a person receives eternal life simply by believing in Jesus for it, or some varied form of the same expression. Yet NEVER ONCE in his entire book, despite 113 occasions to do so, does Wilkin state that by believing in Jesus for eternal life he means someone must believe that Jesus is God-incarnate who died for his sins and rose again.” ( http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org.../crossless.htm an analysis offered by Pastor Tom Stegall, a former GES member)"

Again, we do not give lost people a doctrinal quiz in order for them to be born again. We present the gospel, the PERSON of Jesus Christ to them. I have absolutly NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER regarding these Grace Evangelical folks understanding accurately of the deity of Christ and His substitutional death on our behalf on the cross...based on my familiarity with Zane Hodges. They are just presenting the idea that a person CAN be born again by simply receiveing Christ...with the doctrine being added later.

You said...

"There is no doubt that when it comes to what the lost must believe to be born again Hodges, Wilkin and GES strip the deity, death and resurection from the Gospel. They, therefore, are promoting a Crossless/Deityless gospel so far as the lost are concerned."

Then why do they say THIS in their cyber salvation track on thier web site for lost people to read...

"Jesus Christ said, "He who believes in Me has everlasting life" (John 6:47). He also said, "He who lives and believes in Me will never die." Eternal life is eternal.

Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the whole world (John 1:29). He has removed the sin barrier which separated us from God. However, we still lack spiritual life, eternal life. To get that life, we must simply believe in Jesus for it. There are no strings attached. Our eternal salvation is "not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Eph 2:9)."

And whey do they include THIS on their "what we believe" statement...

""The sole condition for receiving everlasting life is faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ, who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man’s sin and rose bodily from the dead (John 3:16-18; 6:47; Acts 16:31)."

In these statements that are SHOUTING TO THE WORLD that Jesus Christ is God, and He died on the cross as payment for our sins.

This "dietyless" and "crossless" buisiness is just not true, imo. As I see it, they CLEARLY do not believe that way, and they do not evangelize that way.


:godisgood:

 

[pinoybaptist]

The problem with the GES, given their statements that you quoted, is the same problem with most "evangelical" Christians.
They attach requirements to eternal salvation.
There are NO requirements to eternal salvation. Not faith in Christ, not knowledge of the Name of Christ, absolutely nothing.
Salvation is OF the Lord means just that exactly.
Not only is eternal life His alone to give and distribute to His people, it is absolutely unconditional and based solely on the Giver's grace, mercy, and choice.
After He did what His Father predetermined He should do, redeem His people, He SAT DOWN (rested) at the right hand of power, that is, He received that which was rightfully His by reason of His covenant with Himself: glory, honor, power, and a Name above every name in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.
Nothing was required of those He redeemed. None are lost, and none will be lost come the day of judgment, save the son of perdition. All who are His people on this earth before His time, during His time, and after His time have been redeemed.
The problem is that we forget the historical and theological context at the time AFTER Christ's act of redemption. The real reason why He founded a local, visible church and sent out His apostles with the good news of a finished salvation to those in the world for whom the good news is intended.
The ENTIRE known world was under the pagan influence of both Rome and Greek, worshipping after other gods, and the world beyond Rome was equally in spiritual darkness, and the Jews, supposedly the ONLY country in that world who knew and worshipped the One True God, rejected Him and crucified Him. And this was no different from the situation before His advent.
When He called out Abram to create for Himself, out of Abram, a national people to whom He was to reveal Himself, ALL the world worshipped idols, even Sarai, and Abram.
That is why He founded the local, visible church. Israel out of Israel, and entrusted this church with good news: His birth, death, and resurrection. A finished salvation. Good news. You, the sinner has ALREADY been reconciled to God by His only begotten Son. Good news. The One True God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth has condescended to live among sinners, to pitch His tent among us, to, like Abram, rescue us, as he rescued Lot, and like Abram, to rescue us successfully.
Now that you know, ye people of God, worship Him in spirit and in truth.
And He Himself will quicken His people. Not the preacher. Not the gospel message. He, because He alone knows who His people are, where they are, and He alone can reach each and every one of them because He alone is Omnipresent.
Now, a profession of conversion REQUIRES proof: repentance (turn to God from your idols, save yourself from this untoward generation, unless ye repent ye shall all likewise perish), worship (unto Him be glory in the church), proclamation (ye shall be witnesses of me), confession (with the mouth confession is made unto salvation).
This is where 'evangelicals', both Arminian and Calvinists, lose sight of the difference between the eternal, unconditional salvation of God's people, and the temporal, conditional salvation of the same people.
The latter covers ALL, the former covers and is expected of those whom the gospel reaches.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Pinoy:

First of all I reject the entirety of your Calvinistic presuppositions.

Second, which is a more immediate concern: Are you suggesting the elect are born again apart from hearing, understanding and personal faith in/believing the Gospel?


LM

 

[Guido]

You cannot reach salvation without first kneeling at the cross.

Which verse in the Bible says that?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This zombie thread is closed.