When Unity is Treason

[Lou Martuneac]

Unity at the Price of Truth is Treason!

I wrote this article to address the Grace Evangelical Society's Crossless gospel advocates new attempts to reinvent and repackage their heresy, and to biblically thwart their new calls for unity in spite of their egregious errors. Sample,

Compromising the fundamentals of our faith in order to be accepted by and retain fellowship with our peers is wrong. In his day, Charles H. Spurgeon valiantly fought against false teaching and the compromise of major fundamental doctrines in order to maintain unity. Many believe that this struggle led to his premature death. Although the majority of Spurgeon’s Baptist contemporaries agreed with his doctrinal stand, “They preferred unity above the maintenance of doctrinal purity. He (Spurgeon) attacked the position by saying, ‘first pure, then peaceable; if only one is attainable, choose the former. Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin. . . . To pursue union at the price of truth is treason to the Lord Jesus’.” (Adapted from In Defense of the Gospel, E. Wayne Thompson, This Day in Baptist History, p. 529.)

Another must read- Is “RE-DEFINED” Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?

Sample,

"In recent weeks I have been viewing various blogs on both sides of the Lordship Salvation & Crossless Gospel debates. One item that has stood out in my reading is the unfortunate misconception that the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) is largely perceived as the voice of the Free Grace movement at large. The problem is that there are many men in the FG movement that reject and have separated from the GES over the very teachings that have come to be associated with all men in the FG camp. I have been interacting at these various blogs to correct and dispel that misunderstanding."

Keeping interested BB readers up to date on important developments.


LM

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Consistent Free Grace Evangelism?

A friend just published a thoroughly documented proof that the only thing “consistent” about the Grace Evangelical Society’s “ReDefined” Free Grace theology of the Crossless gospel is that it is “consistently” wrong and a radical departure from the biblical plan of salvation.

The title, Consistent Free Grace Evangelism?

Attempts are being made to legitimize the Crossless interpretation of the Gospel as an acceptable “nuance of doctrine.” The egregious errors of the new interpretation of the Gospel by Zane Hodges are so numerous it is preposterous to suggest that the Crossless gospel is anything other than a radical departure from the biblical plan of salvation.

The teaching of Hodges, which insists the lost man does not need to know, understand or believe in the Person and /or finished work of Jesus Christ is heresy of the first order. Sadly, some have been deceived and have gone on to perpetuate these heretical views.

The deity and finished work of Jesus Christ, according to some GES men must be “put on the back burner” in an evangelistic setting if the lost man objects to any of these truths. This is a practical denial of the truths Crossless advocates claim to hold dear and consistently preach!

Another friend wrote,

“What do you have left with all of this removed from the ‘kerugma’ of the Gospel? Practically nothing!”

The refining process of the GES has been “consistent,” in that it has consistently “ReDefined” the Gospel down to a Crossless & Deityless, non-saving proposition.

Calls for unity around the heresy of the Crossless gospel can only be accepted at the expense of treason against the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word, which forbids such unholy alliances.

At Free Grace, Free Speech read, Consistent Free Grace Evangelism?


LM

 

[David Lamb]

Unity at the Price of Truth is Treason!

I wrote this article to address the Grace Evangelical Society's Crossless gospel advocates new attempts to reinvent and repackage their heresy, and to biblically thwart their new calls for unity in spite of their egregious errors. Sample,

Another must read- Is “RE-DEFINED” Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology?

Sample,
Keeping interested BB readers up to date on important developments.

LM

I certainly believe in free grace. (Indeed, how could grace be anything but free? If it had to be paid for in any way by the recipient, it would not be grace). Equally certainly, I do not believe in a crossless gospel. I hope no one will equate belief in God's free grace with belief in a crossless gospel!



Knowing nothing about the Grace Evangelical Society (perhaps because it is an American organisation that has not had much impact here yet), I went to their web site, http://www.faithalone.org/ There, I found a link marked "How Can I be Saved?" Clicking it brought up a page that includes these words (my emphasis):

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.

​

In the GES "Affirmation of Belief" at http://www.faithalone.org/about/4.html the very first words are:

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.

​

That leaves me feeling very confused. Are there two organisations with the name, "Grace Evangelical Society", one teaching that Jesus Christ did die on the cross to save sinners, and the other teaching that He didn't?

 

[Martin]

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.

==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.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

==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.

David:

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

 

[David Lamb]

==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.

Thanks Martin. I was about to ask if we should read too much into the difference between, "The sole condition for receiving everlasting life is faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ, who died a substitutionary death on the cross," and (say) "The sole condition for receiving everlasting life is faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ and His substitutionary death on the cross," but Lou Martenac, in his quotes, has made clear that these people are actually teaching that a person does not have to know, understand or believe in the deity, death or resurrection of Christ, and yet have new life in Christ. (If they just said that a full understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ is not necessary in order to be saved, I would agree, for I don't imagine any of us would claim to have such a full understanding).

In view of all this, I say again that I hope no one will equate belief in God's free grace with belief in a crossless gospel!

 

[pinoybaptist]

........but Lou Martenac, in his quotes, has made clear that these people are actually teaching that a person does not have to know, understand or believe in the deity, death or resurrection of Christ, and yet have new life in Christ.

A new life on earth is not possible for one who professes conversion to Christ and have been told and taught about the deity, death and resurrection of the Person to whom he professes conversion to, and yet continues to live under the darkness of the creed, religion, theology, or whatever it is that he was under when the gospel preacher reached him. I think that is one of the meanings of the phrase, "ye shall die in your sins", or "ye are yet in your sins".

When I came under the instruction of the gospel, and was converted to the Living Christ, I was under the yoke of atheism and armed struggle in my country.

I knew then and there that I had to make a choice between turning my back on what I was involved in and believed in, and following the Savior. I couldn't imagine merging the two.
Ye cannot serve God, and mammon.

Now, let me direct this question to Calvinists.
If I was elect unto eternal life, and this life is in Christ, and I made the wrong choice at the point of my conversion, would I have lost the divine life which Christ had given me ?

 

[skypair]

All,

GES answers an important question for Christians: "What about those who have never heard?" The "everlasting gospel" (fear/acknowledge God, glorify, and thank Him - Rev 14:6-7, Rom 1:21) and the OT "gospel of the kingdom" were both "crossless gospels."

But are they "operative" today? Not among those who hear about Christ, for sure! And NOT ever unto sanctification of the believer (meaning they will not be indwelt by the Spirit but only "justified" before God -- they won't be raptured, only resurrected into Christ's MK). God is NOT sending human "ambassadors" out with this message today so why should it even concern the people of God?

And I am 99% sure the GES people have no earthly idea of these vagaries of their doctrine.

I would also caution them --- belief requires repentance else it accomplishes NOTHING. Even under the former gospels, belief required a self-denial and total trust in God.

skypair

 

[David Lamb]

A new life on earth is not possible for one who professes conversion to Christ and have been told and taught about the deity, death and resurrection of the Person to whom he professes conversion to, and yet continues to live under the darkness of the creed, religion, theology, or whatever it is that he was under when the gospel preacher reached him. I think that is one of the meanings of the phrase, "ye shall die in your sins", or "ye are yet in your sins".

When I came under the instruction of the gospel, and was converted to the Living Christ, I was under the yoke of atheism and armed struggle in my country.

I knew then and there that I had to make a choice between turning my back on what I was involved in and believed in, and following the Savior. I couldn't imagine merging the two.
Ye cannot serve God, and mammon.

Now, let me direct this question to Calvinists.
If I was elect unto eternal life, and this life is in Christ, and I made the wrong choice at the point of my conversion, would I have lost the divine life which Christ had given me ?

Pinoy, perhaps you can help. I am not sure of the connection between my message (the one you quoted) and your post above. I am sure the connection is staring me in the face, but I cannot see it yet. :laugh:

 

[pinoybaptist]

Pinoy, perhaps you can help. I am not sure of the connection between my message (the one you quoted) and your post above. I am sure the connection is staring me in the face, but I cannot see it yet. :laugh:

oh, sorry, david. my fault. I forgot to put the emphasis on new life in Christ, on earth. (as opposed to eternal life). In other words, a new way of life. A new mindset.

What I was trying to say was that it is impossible to have a new life in Christ (qualified by on earth in my post) if one were to try and merge his old ways with the new way.
Remember the Lord's parable on new wineskins and old wineskins ? It just won't work.
I can't, if God had truly regenerated me, insist on viewing Christ as a revolutionary just so I can justify my staying on in an atheistic and violent movement and merge it with my newfound belief in the living Christ.
One way or the other, one will pull this way, and the other that way.

But that is in as far as my earthly walk goes. A new life on earth in Christ.

What the GES is teaching, if I follow correctly, is antinomianism.
"Live exactly the way you have been living, after all, your salvation was one of grace and as long as you believe in Christ, that's all that matters".

I don't buy that, just like everybody else here.

Now, the question to the Calvinists is somewhat related to that thought.
In my case, and as in the case of the majority of God's people, I made the right decision. Leave the old life. Follow the new one.

At the point when I was converted, and began to manifest the life that was in me, then I have free will. In Joshua's words: choose ye this day whom ye will serve.....

But what if I make the wrong decision ?
What if instead of giving up the old life, I remained in it, albeit renouncing my atheism.
Am I not a true child of God then ?

I hope this does not derail the thread.
My mind tends to go off in different directions like a blown up rocket.
If this will derail the thread, please forgive me, all, and let's just forget it.

 

[David Lamb]

oh, sorry, david. my fault. I forgot to put the emphasis on new life in Christ, on earth. (as opposed to eternal life). In other words, a new way of life. A new mindset.

What I was trying to say was that it is impossible to have a new life in Christ (qualified by on earth in my post) if one were to try and merge his old ways with the new way.
Remember the Lord's parable on new wineskins and old wineskins ? It just won't work.
I can't, if God had truly regenerated me, insist on viewing Christ as a revolutionary just so I can justify my staying on in an atheistic and violent movement and merge it with my newfound belief in the living Christ.
One way or the other, one will pull this way, and the other that way.

But that is in as far as my earthly walk goes. A new life on earth in Christ.

What the GES is teaching, if I follow correctly, is antinomianism.
"Live exactly the way you have been living, after all, your salvation was one of grace and as long as you believe in Christ, that's all that matters".

I don't buy that, just like everybody else here.

Now, the question to the Calvinists is somewhat related to that thought.
In my case, and as in the case of the majority of God's people, I made the right decision. Leave the old life. Follow the new one.

At the point when I was converted, and began to manifest the life that was in me, then I have free will. In Joshua's words: choose ye this day whom ye will serve.....

But what if I make the wrong decision ?
What if instead of giving up the old life, I remained in it, albeit renouncing my atheism.
Am I not a true child of God then ?

I hope this does not derail the thread.
My mind tends to go off in different directions like a blown up rocket.
If this will derail the thread, please forgive me, all, and let's just forget it.

Thanks! No need to apologise, Pinoy. It seems we are agreed in being against antinomianism, and in noty wanting to derail the thread. Thanks again!

 

[pinoybaptist]

Thanks! No need to apologise, Pinoy. It seems we are agreed in being against antinomianism, and in noty wanting to derail the thread. Thanks again!

You're kindness personified, brother David. God bless.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

GES Affirms Their Reductionism of the Gospel

In the GES "Affirmation of Belief" at the very first words are: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.

That leaves me feeling very confused. Are there two organisations with the name, "Grace Evangelical Society", one teaching that Jesus Christ did die on the cross to save sinners, and the other teaching that He didn't?

David/All:

Let me first reiterate that there is only one GES. It has become a shrinking cell of extremists in the Free Grace community who have adopted the Zane Hodges/Bob Wilkin Crossless gospel. They do NOT speak for or represent quite a number of pastors/teachers in the overall FG community.

Secong the crux of controversy is NOT over what the GES/Crossless advocates believe Jesus did to provide salvation. All FG men believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again. The GS, however, insist the lost man does not have to be aware of, understand or believe any of that, but can still be born again.

Now, I am going to provide direct documentation from the GES website so that you can see for yourself their reductionist view of the biblical plan of salvation in stark terms.

Until August 2005 the GES Affirmation of Belief on the doctrine of salvation was stated as follows (abbreviated form):

“Jesus Christ, God incarnate, paid the full penalty for man’s sin when He died on the cross of Calvary. Any person who, in simple faith, trusts in the risen Christ as his or her only hope of heaven, refusing to trust in anything else, receives the gift of eternal life which, once granted, can never be lost.

The sole condition for receiving eternal salvation from hell is faith (trust) in the Lord Jesus Christ, Who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man's sin and rose from the dead (John 3:16-18; 6:47; Acts 16:31).”

That previous statement has been revised. Following is the current and revised GES Affirmation:

“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 ).”

In the former statement “Jesus Christ” is identified as Deity by use of the term, “God incarnate.” This reference to the Lord’s Deity has been deleted. Furthermore, the previous statement included, “any person who, in simple faith, trusts in the risen Christ... .” That simple statement summarizes Christ’s Deity, incarnation, death and resurrection. As it appeared then, the statement was perfectly consistent with Romans 10:9-10 in regards to trust (believing) in the resurrected Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The statement also includes the word “trust.”

The revisions to the GES Affirmation statement were made with purpose. In the new statement, the relative clause is parenthetical. When the GES says, “faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ who died...” they do NOT mean that the lost person needs to believe Jesus died and rose again. They simply mean a lost man must believe in “Jesus” as the Giver of eternal life.

GES spells out their contents of belief in very next sentence, “To believe in Jesus...is to be convinced that He guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it.” This is not a paraphrase or roundabout way of stating their position. This is literally the GES definition of the only necessary content of faith for the reception of eternal life. According to the GES, understanding and/or believing the cross, His resurrection and Deity are not necessary for salvation.

You can note the phrase “faith…in the risen Christ” has been eliminated from the current affirmation. They rarely use descriptive phrases such as that. You will also notice also that the word “trusts” has been removed.


LM