Here's the Passage to Discount in the GES Gospel Debate

OK All,

Here is the passage that convinced me to change from supporting Zane and Bob. I have yet to have anyone argue against the point...especially in any printed form. The whole passage goes further, but this should be enough for the discussion.

It is undeniable that Paul saw the cross as in the message by which we are saved. Look at this:

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles," (1 Corinthians 1:21-23, ESV)

If I put these together for precision it reads like this:

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach (Christ Crucified)(v.23) to save those who believe.

What do you think? I think the cross is an unavoidable part of THE MESSAGE. This is especially why a gospel that doesn't include the cross is not a gospel that will save eternally.

Grace,

FRL

Help on the Gospel: Top Passages

Hi All,

What about one of your favorite (though perhaps less obvious) passages that support the importance of the cross / resurrection, etc., as necessary content of 'saving faith'? Please explain why. This could be a huge help.

Grace,

FRL

Is believing the Doctrine of Eternal Security necessary for eternal salvation?

Hi,

Many of you have brought up the issue surrounding Eternal Security and GES. My understanding of the GES view is that they have adopted Calvin's "Assurance is of the Essence of Faith" and misapplied it by 'logical extension'.

Basically, GES says that unless you are (1) Assured of your salvation at the moment of faith (you can lose it later but still be saved, and (2) Assured that you can never lose your salvation at the same moment of faith...without these, then you are not eternally saved; you have not yet believed unto salvation from hell to heaven.

Clearly this is problematical practically and scripturally; however, before I weigh in, I'd like to just make sure we understand the issue. Is this correct? Am I stating the view fairly?

Thanks,

FRL

GES Gospel: Lybrand Open Letter

Here's a link Lou provided to download my Open Letter:

http://docyouments.googlepages.com/GESGospel.LybrandOpenLetter.04-14-09.pdf

Questions? Thoughts?

Grace,

Dr. Fred R. Lybrand

FGA GES Gospel Statement

So, as the President of the Free Grace Alliance, we've prayerfully concluded that this statement must be made.

The Free Grace Alliance is not associated with the Grace Evangelical Society and does not endorse the GES Gospel (also referred to as "crossless" or "promise only" by some). We invite those who share our heart for the Gospel's clarity and declaration, of both the Person and Work of Christ, to join hands with us.

What questions do you have for me?

Fred Lybrand

FRED LYBRAND'S OFFERINGS

Welcome to my blog. We'll see how this shapes up in time, but just now I am going to be on focus with one of my interests: Free Grace

Here are the various links concerning my roles and interests at present (just click the hotlink below):

President, Free Grace Alliance
Senior Pastor, Northeast Evangelical Free Bible Church
Partner, TrimTab Solutions
The Writing Course for Writers
The Writing Course for Homeschoolers & Educators
The Essay Course (High School and College)
Author: Preaching on Your Feet
My Twitter
GES Gospel: Lybrand Open Letter Download
Video: Grace Based Discipleship