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
http://docyouments.googlepages.com/GESGospel.LybrandOpenLetter.04-14-09.pdf
Questions? Thoughts?
Grace,
Dr. Fred R. Lybrand
Antonio,
ReplyDeleteI've been in touch with Elliot...he hasn't informed me he's jumped ship. He did step off the Board...but it was a normal part of the process for FGA.
Thanks,
FRL
Sorry for this re-post...I can't see where it went just now.
ReplyDeleteAll,
It is a little overwhelming to get back and have to work through almost 200 posts! Glad you're all having a good time :-)
As I work through it, I'll pull out a few things I feel would benefit us in the conversation.
Michele,
Thanks for dropping in!
Michele said,
It absolutely requires of you (or the "we" in the document) that you be correct, without error, that no one can ever be saved with the GES gospel - as an impossibility - to make this separation worthwhile. Can you prove it, or do you feel you have proven it sufficiently in your open letter? Admittedly I haven't read it a second time yet.
....................
We actually aren't making a separation, we are acknowledging one that alread exists. Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges have never supported the FGA or the FGA Covenant (they've told me they don't agree with it). I have plenty of letters to clearly show they have never been with us. We have always been separated from GES (by their choice in the beginning)...all that is happening now is that we are making it abundantly clear that we have nothing to do with GES (people think we are together). Bob has further removed selling our materials (some from our key leaders) from the GES store.
Now, as to my 'correctness' concerning the GES gospel and no one ever getting saved. How do I answer such things? I'm accountable before the Lord for what I teach others (24 years and counting in a public teaching ministry).
All I have to go by is what the Word says. What've I've laid out in my letter is the reasons related to the GES Gospel and its incompleteness as a gospel to save. The view is built on a debatable verse (John 6:47...cf. ESV, NIV, NASB, etc.) using a set of assumptions (that haven't been proved / debated by much of anyone of repute) to isolate John as the only place to discern the gospel from.
The premise basically says that if you get saved from reading other books of the Bible (Romans, for example....or 1 Corinthians) you can't really get saved unless you misunderstand the passages you read. In these books you do not walk away with a faith in Christ's promise to guarantee, etc.
I certainly 'could be wrong' in the grand schema of my fallenness and accountability as a teacher.
However, just as with other problematical views...it isn't what the Bible teaches. Well, the Bible does teach it...clearly teaches it...but that is definitely not ALL the Bible teaches. We need an understanding of the gospel that is complete, clear and fits the whole Word of God. The GES Gospel is clear, but it is also incomplete and does not fit the whole of the Word (in my view). In a way I'd say the GES Gospel is true in the same way I'd say someone who says the gospel is "Believe in God" is also true...but it just isn't enough content to get saved. The GES Gospel at least adds more (Jesus, faith, guarantee, eternal life).
The question I'd offer to GES Gospel folks is, "Am I so sure about this "gospel's" truth and ability to save that I am willing to stand before the Lord about it?"
I could not possibly do that since the cross, etc. is so clearly in view throughout the Word. I think I'd hear, "What were you thinking? How did you want ME to say it so you'd include MY cross?"
I'm sorry if I'm to curt and business-like...but I'm deadlined and off to a meeting.
I'll check in soon!
Grace,
FRL
Fred,
ReplyDeleteYou would know better than me. But when I was in Dallas for the GES, I was told by 2 people that he jumped ship. I will gladly stand corrected.
Antonio
after 200 posts, blogger puts the additional comments on another page. You just hit "newest" and it will take you to the newest comment posts
ReplyDeleteAntonio,
ReplyDeleteThanks. This subject between you and I is dropped forever. Email me some of the questions you would ask him because I personally am at my wits end! LOLOLOLOL Seriously man, the dude has some OUT THERE beliefs! You should have heard the discussions we had about Dan Brown's written works! LOLOLOL
But he always comes back to saying he believes in Jesus. Yeah, I know, half the time he just throws that out, but there are other times when...GGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!
Elliot Johnson is a good guy. I imagine he would be greatly missed. Just out of curosity, and this is for everyone's edification, just how much damage do you think this debate has done to the Free Grace movement at large?
Bro. Lou,
ReplyDeleteI apologize for my delay in answering your posts to me. I have tried twice & encountered technical problems both times. I will try again.
You asked, "In your opinion, does Bob Wilkin still believe, 'complete trust upon what Jesus did for me upon the cross,' is a necessary component of saving faith?
Please advise,
LM"
To that I must say that I do not know for sure as to the way your question is stated. I am not trying to evade or be vague, I don't know because I have not asked him. I have no reason to doubt that he fully believes in the cross & resurrection of Christ as before, yet the whole debate seems to be around the fact that he & the GES no longer seem to make that a requirement of saving faith, but have more focused on the "bulls-eye" of believing in Him for eternal life. I won't go into all of what that may mean since it has been hashed out ad infinitum (sp?) in this thread. But you asked for my opinion, & that is it. That is all I plan to say about that, so I will just say thanks for your patience. God Bless.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have been reading this thread with great interest but have refrained from posting until now. Antonio has said some very interesting things in two of his posts that I would like some clarification on. So this post is really directed toward him.
ReplyDeleteAntonio-
The following quotes are from your post on April 22, 2009 11:07 AM:
“The strongest evidence that Jesus Christ can be trusted for one's eternal destiny is that He is the God-Man, who removed the sin barrier between God and man by His death on the cross, and that He rose again victorious over death and sin.”
“The communication of the death, resurrection, and deity of Christ are indispensible in this endeavor. There is no chance that our preaching will drop the most persuasive elements of the gospel. Our objective is to lead men and women to place their faith in Jesus for their eternal destiny. The method that we use will include the greatest pesuasive evidences of Christ work and person.”
“No one, when being evangelized in this way, being given statements about Jesus from the Bible, will believe in Jesus for eternal life who is left unconvinced that Jesus died and rose again.”
“Since the death and resurrection are the greatest evidences that Jesus can be trusted for eternal life
and in light of this fact, the GES presents this evidence so that men and women may be persuaded to believe in Jesus”Antonio-
These are very interesting statements. Leaving aside for the moment our view that the truths of Christ's deity, crucifixion, and resurrection go beyond “the strongest evidence that Jesus can be trusted for one's eternal destiny” to being in fact the gospel message itself, I have some questions for you.
In the November/December 2008 Grace in Focus Bob Wilkin stated that we “legalists” have chosen the deity, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ “arbitrarily” from among “literally hundreds of essential truths about our Savior” to be the gospel message.
Do you affirm that we have chosen these truths arbitrarily or do you disagree with Wilkin on this? I wonder if you can explain for me why Wilkin would say we have chosen these points “arbitrarily” if in fact they are “the strongest evidence that Jesus can be trusted” and are “indispensable” to the endeavor of “inviting men and women to place their faith in Jesus for eternal life”? Does anyone chose the “strongest evidence” which is “indispensable” “arbitrarily”? If you agree with Wilkin that we have chosen these indispensable truths arbitrarily, then you need feel no discomfort in answering for what he wrote. It is the position and not so much Wilkin's words that are of interest and since, if you agree with him, it is your position too you are certainly qualified to address this. Therefore, please feel free to answer my questions on the arbitrariness issue as speaking for yourself. And even if you do not agree with him on this, surely you understand his reasoning so do please answer to the best of your ability anyway. Additionally, if you do not agree with him I would be interested to know your reasoning.
And now from your post to Kev on April 23, 2009 1:15 PM:
“It seems to me that #1 and #4 directly contradict #9.”#1 being “Must believe that Christ died for everyone’s sins”#4 being “Must believe that the legal payment was made completely”#9 being “Must know their sin has left them guilty and subject to that justice”Since it seems to you that #1 and #4 contradict #9, are we then to understand your position to be that because Christ died for everyone's sins and legal payment was made completely we are no longer left guilty by sin and subject to that justice? Are the atonement and its application the same thing? Then may we understand you to affirm that everyone is in fact saved because #1 and #4 have been accomplished? Why, then, must we believe Jesus guarantees eternal life to all who trust Him for it? For that matter, why must we believe Him for anything at all? Isn't salvation automatically granted since #9 directly contradicts #1 and #4? It is obvious that this is not what Kev meant, since he does not see there is any contradiction in the concepts you have turned into points. Kev's view (correct me if I'm wrong on this, Kev) is that just because complete payment has been made does not mean a given individual has benefited from it. The individual must avail himself of it to benefit from it. Therefore your point #9 is still a factor. But since you have suggested that #1 and #4 (seem to) contradict #9, I would like to know why that leaves anything at all to be done by anyone.
Later in the same post you say this,
“What must a man do to be saved?
Simply believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life.”Why? If #9 contradict s #1 and #4, why must a man believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life? Why does he not just automatically have it?
Now again, a little later you say,
“When doing evangelism, the GES advocates use the Word of God. We show that Jesus Christ paid it all on the cross, and that His resurrection proved His payment was accepted. How and why can Jesus give eternal life to those who believe in Him? Precisely because He paid for the gift of eternal life with His blood and rose again from the dead to seal the deal. He now gives eternal life as a free gift to anyone who believes in Him.”Now we are back to our first issue. You are here saying what the GES way of evangelizing is and are therefore representing the organization as a whole. You say the that way the GES evangelizes utilizes the death and resurrection to facilitate belief in Jesus for eternal life. But Bob Wilkin, the main leader and representative of the GES has said the death of Christ on the cross and His resurrection are “arbitrarily” chosen by us (the FFG crew, as you call us.) If they are points the GES would never leave out of a gospel presentation, why are these points called “arbitrary” by the GES's main leader? Why are they “arbitrary” when we use them but “indispensable” when you use them?
JanH
I'm sorry about the cluttered paragraphs after the first part of my post. I don't know why that happened. The preview showed it separated neatly. :(
ReplyDeleteJanH
David:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply.
You wrote, "...the fact that he (Wilkin) & the GES no longer seem to make that a requirement of saving faith, but have more focused on the 'bulls-eye' of believing in Him for eternal life."
The so-called "bulls-eye" of the GES Crossless gospel is a way off target miss wide to the left of the center of the Gospel, i.e. the content of saving faith.
Lou
Antonio:
ReplyDeleteYou said, “Ask me a question, give me a valid objection, and I will answer you. This includes Fred Lybrand, or any other…”
Thanks, this is an important debate and I want to take you up on that sincere offer. I would appreciate your answer to my two-part question here-
In this present dispensation, what is the content of saving faith? and/or
In this present dispensation, is personal belief in Jesus’ deity, His atoning death on the cross, and/or His resurrection necessary for faith in Jesus Christ to constitute saving faith?
Can any of these truths be unknown and/or NOT believed by the unsaved and still receive the gift of eternal life?
Thanking you in advance of your answer.
Jimmy O'Rourke
Jan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the questions.
You write:
----------
These are very interesting statements. Leaving aside for the moment our view that the truths of Christ's deity, crucifixion, and resurrection go beyond “the strongest evidence that Jesus can be trusted for one's eternal destiny” to being in fact the gospel message itself, I have some questions for you.
----------
I believe that these things are part of the gospel too! There is no persuasive evidence to state that their is a "technical" gospel that must be believed in order to be saved. Besides Jesus' statement to believe the gospel early in Mark (and we would have to agree whatever that message was did not include the deity, death, and resurrection), there is no passage that states that one has eternal life, is born again, is eternally saved, or justified by believing the gospel.
Tradition has informed the usage of the term "gospel" and does not conform to the actual lexical data for the word in its usage. The term "gospel" is a very broad term that surely includes the death and resurrection, the promise of Jesus to guarantee one's eternal destiny by faith in Him, and many other issues as well.
you continue:
----------
Do you affirm that we have chosen these truths arbitrarily or do you disagree with Wilkin on this?
----------
I agree with Wilkin. In the issue of loading the content of saving faith, your position has arbitrarily chosen to import into the content of saving faith these items. There is no objective hermeneutical standard by which your position deems one essential truth about the Savior to be necessary content and another essential truth about the Savior to not be saving content.
you continue:
----------
I wonder if you can explain for me why Wilkin would say we have chosen these points “arbitrarily” if in fact they are “the strongest evidence that Jesus can be trusted” and are “indispensable” to the endeavor of “inviting men and women to place their faith in Jesus for eternal life”?
----------
It is one consideration to weigh all of the data about Jesus Christ and deem certain things about Him to be strong evidence inviting and encouraging men and women to place their trust in Him for eternal life, and it is another consideration altogether to determine using subjective biblical synthesis those items that are God-mandated requirements for eternal life.
In the Gospel of John, indisputably, the greatest sign was Jesus' resurrection from the dead. And remember, the signs were to validate Jesus' claim that He was the Christ, the Guarantor of eternal life to the believer in Him.
When determining those strongest points of evidence, we must ask ourself the question that a potential convert would ask us:
Why can I trust in Christ to secure my eternal destiny?
In thinking about this question, we can weigh all the many, many facts about Jesus and come up with several strong reasons why Jesus Christ can be trusted for salvation.
To be sure, the death, rez, and deity of Christ are, as you have quoted me, indispensible. But I must hasten to add that given the opportunity and time, I share quite a bit more than that! Christ's miracles substantiate His claim, His compassions, acts, and authoratative teachings do the same.
One of the most appealing things to many people these days is when you unravel the idea of eternal life. If you peel it, for them, like an onion, you can get to all the layers of what this gift actually entails. Eternal life is something that is presently possessed that can be developed, it being no static entity. Through the new birth, and the resurrection power of Christ, one can lead a life of great significance, purpose, and meaning, that transects into eternity. This life has priviledges! To come to Christ in prayer, who will never leave you or forsake you! A God, with all the resources of the whole universe, is there to give you grace and guide you through this world's tribulations! Jesus Christ is their as your Sympathetic High Priest, having endured all the trials (and more!) that we could ever face, there to help us. Jesus is the best friend that one could ever have!
In conclusion, there is a difference between determining those strong evidences that will increasingly invite men and women to place their faith in Jesus for everlasting life, and determining, through proper exegetical care and biblical "synthesis" the supposed God-mandated multiple doctrines residing within saving faith.
you continue:
----------
Since it seems to you that #1 and #4 contradict #9, are we then to understand your position to be that because Christ died for everyone's sins and legal payment was made completely we are no longer left guilty by sin and subject to that justice?
----------
Yes. Jesus is the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world. God no longer imputes sin to the world. Jesus is the propitation for the sin of the world. Justice has been served, in the sense that, Jesus died to remove the barrier of sin between God and man.
To any impartial observer, Jan (not to those as theologically astute as yourself), #1 and #4 blatantly contradict #9. If the legal payment has been made completely, why would man then be subject to God's justice? This is the height of contradiction.
you continue:
----------
Are the atonement and its application the same thing?
----------
Either Christ died for the sins of the world or only POTENTIALLY died for the sins of the world. From Kevl's articulation he states that 1) Christ died for EVERYONE's sins, and 2) Legal payment was made COMPLETELY. This is not language of potentiality, but language of ACTUALITY.
I agree with that language. Christ actually died for everyone's sins, not potentially, but actually.
You continue:
----------
Then may we understand you to affirm that everyone is in fact saved because #1 and #4 have been accomplished?
----------
No, indeed not! I liken it to this illustration:
Imagine two neigboring houses with an impenetrable wall circling the globe between them, 10,000 miles high.
House #1 is God, house #2 is mankind, and the wall is sin. Mankind cannot pass through the wall to reach God. Sin is the barrier between man and God. Christ died to remove that sin barrier, so that God was free to confer His life upon mankind. Christ's death literally removed the entire wall, and cast it into outerspace. There no longer resides the sin barrier separating God and man.
But! Just because the wall is gone, doesn't mean that mankind in house #2 is conferred to God in house #1! That is where the proclamation of the gospel comes in. Jesus paid it all! He removed the sin barrier! All that is left is to accept the gift he purchased by believing in Him!
In the counsel of God's will, since the sin barrier was removed, freeing God to confer His life upon mankind, God determined to give His life to those, and only those, who place their faith in His Son. When they do so, they are transferred to God's house. Those who do not believe in the Son do not possess life, and are not transferred to God's house. And we know that the basis for condemnation, as told by the Apostle John in the book of Revelation, is that a person's name is not written in the Book of Life.
I hope that I have now answered your questions. God bless you!
Antonio
Hi Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteYour name sounds familiar, have I seen you around or corresponded with you before?
Anyway, on to your question:
you write:
----------
In this present dispensation, what is the content of saving faith?
----------
Let me try to answer it this way. The condition for receiving eternal life is simply believing in Jesus for it.
So eternal life is possessed by believing in Jesus.
What do I mean by believing in Jesus?
Anytime in communication that faith in an object is spoken of there is a context.
Imagine these contexts surrounding these affirmations of faith in an object:
1) "I believe in the babysitter" spoken in the context of going out for the evening.
2) "I believe in the airline pilot" spoken in the context of chartering a plane to the Bahamas.
In each of these instances the context determines what is the content, or purpose for the faith. The same with saving faith.
Jesus says, "whoever believes in [Me] shall not perish but has eternal life" (John 3:16)
The context is clear. What one is relying upon Jesus for by faith is for eternal life and the guarantee from perishing.
Jesus makes a promise, and when I believe Him to be able, authorized, desirous, and reliable to perform His promise, I have believed in Him. According to Christ's own statement, when I do so I 1) have eternal life and 2) shall never perish.
Now to the rest of your questions. If Jesus makes a promise that is conditioned on only the one requirement of trusting in Him for that promise, and I trust Him for that promise, Jesus will make good on it! He is no liar, cheat, or false promiser.
If it is stipulated that eternal life has only one condition, and it is met, then one has eternal life, regardless of what else may be true of the individual believing in Jesus for it.
Let me say this: "Anyone who is found guilty of a felony is a felon".
If this is a true statement, then no matter what else may be true of the one found guilty of a felony, HE IS A FELON.
If someone is found guilty of a felony and is the pope, he is a felon.
If someone is a republican and is found guilty of a felony, he is a felon.
If someone is found guilty of a felony and is a Senator, he is a felon.
If someone is a police officer and is found guilty of a felony, he is a felon.
No matter what may be true about a person, if they are found guilty of a felony, they are a felon.
Christ offers eternal life on one condition and one condition alone: believing in Him. If someone believes in Jesus He has eternal life.
If someone believes in aliens, but believes in the N.T. Jesus for eternal life, he has eternal life.
If someone believes in evolution, but believes in the N.T. Jesus for eternal life, he has eternal life.
If someone believes that Jesus rose spiritually from the dead, but believes in the N.T. Jesus for eternal life, he has eternal life.
etc., etc.
I hope this answers your questions.
graciously,
Antonio da Rosa
Jan:
ReplyDeleteYou stated to Anonio the following:
"You say the that way the GES evangelizes utilizes the death and resurrection to facilitate belief in Jesus for eternal life. But Bob Wilkin, the main leader and representative of the GES has said the death of Christ on the cross and His resurrection are “arbitrarily” chosen by us (the FFG crew, as you call us.) If they are points the GES would never leave out of a gospel presentation, why are these points called “arbitrary” by the GES's main leader? Why are they “arbitrary” when we use them but “indispensable” when you use them?"
I read his reply, but did not see an answer to your final question which was, "Why are they (Jesus' death and resurrection) 'arbitary' when we use them but 'idispensable' when you use them"? This is an all-important question I hope Antonio answers.
Jimmy
P.S. Antonio, looking forward to your answers to my questions as well. Thanks.
Antonio:
ReplyDeleteNo, we've not met, and I don't recall ever conversing with you. That said, it's a pleasure to speak with you now.
First: Thank you for your response.
Second: I take it from your reply that you believe the COSF to be simply believing Jesus for the promise of eternal life. Did I read you correctly? In other words, it's your position that one can be regenerated apart from knowing of Jesus' death for our sins and His resurrection, correct?
Third: You state, "If someone believes in aliens, but believes in the N.T. Jesus for eternal life, he has eternal life. If someone believes in evolution, but believes in the N.T. Jesus for eternal life, he has eternal life.
If someone believes that Jesus rose spiritually from the dead, but believes in the N.T. Jesus for eternal life, he has eternal life."
In these statements, you appear to place importance on one believing the "N.T." Jesus for the promise of eternal life. Why is this important in your mind?
Thanks again,
Jimmy
Dear Friends,
ReplyDeleteIf there's anyone out there who is REALLY searching for answers to the questions raised in this debate, I plead with you to take time to understand the purpose for the Gospel of John. John holds the key to this debate in my estimation.
Understanding the purpose of this book will help open your eyes to the answers that you are seeking.
Everybody here would have to admit that in the gospel of John people got saved BEFORE they understood about the cross and resurrection of Christ. Right?
So then it comes down to the debate about progressive revelation, and has the content to be believed changed in this dispensation?
Some of you say yes, and some no. John holds the key.
If John is to be used TODAY for it's STATED purpose, then we must conclude that the content has not changed in this dispensation.
If the content HAS changed, then the book is nothing more than a history book with some good content for believers to grow by.
That's a HUGE conclusion to come to..... to say that John is primarily a history book which doesn't apply to us today as far as what we must believe to have eternal life.
Don't you think that this is really something important enough that you should check out?
I've been studying this book for the last couple years and have been thoroughly convinced of its purpose being evangelistic.
I'm going to borrow from something I said on Antonio's website a long time ago.
Purpose of the book of John...
"...these **SIGNS** are written that you may BELIEVE that Jesus is the CHRIST, the Son of God, and that believing you may have LIFE in his name" (John 20:31)
To believe that Jesus is the Christ is to believe that He is the giver of eternal life.
(John 11:25-27)
EIGHT SIGNS recorded under inspiration of the Holy Spirit to prove that Jesus is the Christ (the giver of eternal life).
ALL the discourses and narratives are built around these signs and serves the purpose (as described by Zane Hodges) of either preparing for OR illuminating the meaning of the 8 signs around which the book is structured. I checked this out. That's exactly what God is opening my eyes to see so clearly. Even the reactions by the believing and unbelieving Jews show this to be true. Exciting!
1st sign........Water to wine
2nd sign......The royal officer's son healed
3rd sign.......The man at the pool of Bethesda healed
4th sign....... Feeding the multitude
5th sign....... Walking on water through the storm
6th sign....... Healing the man born blind
7th sign....... The raising of Lazarus from the dead
8th sign....... Jesus death and resurrection
Each one of the discourses or narratives that follow or precede the signs explain the signs. Sometimes there is an overlap in the discussion illuminating the meaning of more than one sign.
An example of this is in the middle of the 6th and 7th signs. Both of these signs emphasize the blindness of unbelief. We see the reaction of those who refuse to believe and those who do believe.
I want to add this comment that I posted above here because it's part of the teaching in John.
In John 2 Jesus made a whip of cords and drove out all the money changers. So the Jews said to Him in vs. 18... "What SIGN do You show to us, since You do these things?" Then in vs. 19 Jesus answered... "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews thought He was speaking of the literal Temple, but of course He was speaking of his death and resurrection.
Now notice vs. 22....
"Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples REMEMBERED that He had said this to them; and they believed in Him." My friends, do you see the 8th sign here? The purpose statement in John 20:30,31 says these SIGNS were written that you may BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
The way I understand this is that the cross and the resurrection is the 8th sign which is the greatest of all REASONS to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the giver of eternal life....
John 11:25-27.
The book of John was given to show us how to have eternal life. And once we believe, there is great material in John to grow by... (the abundance of eternal life for the disciple). But FIRST we must receive the gift freely by grace through faith in Jesus, and THEN we can enjoy eternal life experientially as we grow in Christ. This book is telling us how to receive it. Once we have LIFE we're told how we can enjoy it . All the other books in the Bible are primarily discipleship books. They do contain the saving message, but the purpose of those books are not evangelistic. Paul and John are in total agreement. All the authors of the Bible are in total agreement. It's just that their purpose is different.
Friends, if you really want to be convinced what the saving content is today, you need to learn the purpose for the Gospel of John. I don't expect you to take my word for it. But you owe it to yourself to find out. God will show you if you ask Him in all honestly. He is in the business of being the revealor of truth to those who seek it...... seek Him.
The KEY to this debate and understanding what the saving content is for TODAY and always is understanding the purpose for the book of John.
I hope you'll find out.
All because of His wonderful grace,
Diane
:-)
Antonio,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
I am afraid that the only thread at the moment holding the FGA together is its common enemy of the GES.
The theology of checklist evangelism does not hold up under scrutiny. And the illustration that there are so many opinions and positions on the gospel in the FGA is only one item which shows its deficiency.
................
I've noticed you saying these things in other contexts. All these thoughts are really pretty indefensible. Somehow you think GES Unity is a proof of validity. Naturally, many groups have been united in their error. The FGA is made up of loads of people who aren't even aware of these issues (since they are narrow and largely talk among the same people). Remember, the FGA was not founded as a reaction to anything in GES...we were simply a group who wanted to get the message out, while cheering (back then) for GES to keep working on the Journal / Presentations side.
Checklist evangelism is also indefensible as a critique since ALL evangelism involves some kind of checklist (baptism, church membership, the cross, etc.---pick your group). Even GES has a checklist:
1. Believe
2. In Jesus
3. Who is the guarantor
4. Of Eternal Live
5. If (conditional) you believe Him for it
6. Caveat: Eternal Life = you can never lose
Other things like "apart from works" might go in here too. There isn't scrutiny...there is the basics of the gospel that believers have held to and died for over the centuries. Everyone is stuck thinking about content...rhetorically, it doesn't matter if it is referred to as a list or not.
The GES Gospel has never been scrutinized because no one has invented it until the late 1900s.
Grace,
FRL
P.S. By the way, I've been in recent contact with my friends Elliot Johnson and Dave Anderson...and I don't get any idea of 'bailout' on the part of these guys at all. I can say, however, that Elliot is particularly grieved about the ungraciousness he sees all around this issue. I hurt with him on that.
Antonio,
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing that people are saying Elliot Johnson bailed because he is no longer on the FGA Council. He stepped down in the sequence of a natural rotation....and, as he told me last week...he's busy writing.
Thanks,
FRL
Fred:
ReplyDeleteTruth has rarely been a concern for Antonio. Rumor mongering on the FGA, (not to mention his act of criminal libel and defamation against brothers in Christ), is habitual with him as he proves over and over.
Lou
Fred:
ReplyDeleteYou might want to highlight the fact that Antonio da Rosa has stated in this thread (in answer to Kev’s question) for the GES “Crossless” gospel that a lost man can deny the deity death and/or resurrection of Christ and still can be born again.
Of course every member of the GES agrees with Antonio.
Let’s congratulate the GES membership on their 100% unity around Antonio's declaration that the deity of Christ can be consciously denied and still that lost man can immediately receive the gift of eternal life.
Lou
Wow. I've been watching and reading blogs about this debate for close to 2 years now, and I don't think I've ever seen a thread move this fast! Good grief, did some of you people have the last few days off or something?? Wow. I've barely had the time to read all these comments, let alone try to formulate any kind of response. And anytime I sit down to do so, I find that 5 people have already responded, and 10 more responded to that, etc. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, it's just surprising and hard to keep up with.
ReplyDeleteAntonio, I have to say, despite your frequent disappearances, this is the most I think I've ever seen you hang around and respond to questions. Maybe it's Fred's VIP status. ;-) Whatever the reason, thanks for at least engaging folks. Although I do find it highly ironic that you complained that my comments have been too long, yet not only are your comments often very long, but you specifically requested people to be "verbose"! Oh well.
Anyway, there's so much I could respond to here, it would take days to write it all. So I'll just pick one point, one that I think has largely been left untouched in this debate, but one that I think is probably the main foundational difference separating both sides.
It has come out some in this thread, and that is the GES view that sin is actually no longer an issue between God and man. They believe that ALL sin has been paid for, and sin no longer stands between God and man. They hold that the ONLY thing between God and man is that man lacks eternal life. Thus, it is very logical that they then think that the only thing the lost need to believe is how to get that life, i.e. believe that Jesus gives it to them.
Whereas, the classic FG position (and even LS) is that sin DOES still separate man from God (I've written about this pretty extensively here). Thus it is very logical to think that the lost need to believe in and accept the payment for their sin in order to be reconciled to God.
So you see, there is no "arbitrary" to it. Both sides are doing the same thing - deciding that the lost must accept Jesus' offer of reconciliation to God. But since both sides have a different starting point as to what is currently causing our separation from God, we then end up with different items that must be believed in order for that reconciliation to occur.
Because, see, the GES people cannot show a single verse or passage where anyone is commanded to believe THAT Jesus gives eternal life, and then they will have eternal life. Nor can they give even one example of someone in the Bible who believed (or it is said that they believed) that Jesus gives them eternal life, and that that belief is how they were born again.
So it could be presented this way:
GES Starting Point - Sin is gone, only problem is lack of eternal life.
GES Ending Point - People must then believe that Jesus' offer of eternal life will reconcile them to God.
Classic FG Starting Point - Sin is a problem, we lack life precisely because of sin.
Classic FG Ending Point - People must then believe that Jesus' payment for their sin on the cross and subsequent resurrection will reconcile them to God.
So, nothing about it is "arbitrary". The thing is, the Bible simply doesn't tell us what precisely must be believed to be born again. Indeed, given the culture, we wouldn't expect such precision. I've written about this in some detail on my blog (scroll down a little to the second point of that article).
In addition, acknowledging our sin and accepting Jesus' death and resurrection hardly requires some sort of seminary degree or a "scavenger hunt", as is often alleged. It is perhaps the most obvious, easy-to-find information in all the Bible.
Finally, Antonio's scenario of Jesus sending a man to hell for not meeting a list of doctrinal requirements is inaccurate. People will be sent to hell because of their sin. If they did not acknowlege their sin and accept Jesus' payment for their sin by his death and resurrection alone, then they remain in their sin and will spend eternity in hell, no matter what they wanted Jesus to give them.
To- agent4Him (James Reitman):
ReplyDeleteYesterday (4/23 @ 1:54PM) you raised a concern. in reply to you Antonio reaffirmed his belief that, “…that one could deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny.”
He was replying to your comment that appeared here. You expressed concern over da Rosa’s original answer to Kev’s question, which as we see he reaffirmed for you. The concern you expressed was,
As I read Antonio’s immediate response to that question (“Yes”) I thought he was agreeing that such a person can clearly deny…Christ’s death and resurrection, however further down it seems clear that Antonio does not believe a person can deny the cross and resurrection at the very moment of belief.
Am I right to assume that Antonio did not notice the “deny” in Kevl’s question?Well, of course, he did as he acknowledged to you and all readers.
James, Would you please answer a question (which I also posted to you yesterday) for everyone in this thread-
Do you agree or disagree with Antonio da Rosa, “that one could deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?”
Thanks in anticipation of your answer,
LM
PS: To All, I have e-mailed this thread comment to Brother James, with a link so that he will be able to find my question here and provide an answer as to whether or not he agrees with Antonio, who is speaking for the GES "Crossless gospel.
To- Bob Wilkin, Stephen Lewis, John Niemela, Bob Bryant, Rene Lopez, Gary (goe), Alvin, agent4him, Michele, Rose & all GES Crossless gospel people:
ReplyDeleteOn April 23 Kev asked Antonio da Rosa this question,
“Can a person be Eternally Saved while at the moment of Salvation deny or not know that Jesus is God, that He died for the person's personal sins on the Cross, that He was raised from the dead on the third day?
Antonio (speaking on behalf of the GES Crossless Gospel) answered Kev’s question this way,
“Yes, a person can…one could (consciously) deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?”
Do you GES people agree with Antonio da Rosa, speaking on behalf of the GES interpretation of the Gospel, clearly affirmed he believes a lost man can consciously deny the deity of Christ, His death and/or resurrection, but still be born again?
LM
Mr. Martuneac:
ReplyDeleteMy "concern" may not be the same as what you seem to be inferring from my post that you cited.
You don't know me and have only communicated with me on one previous occasion by e-mail (April 9, 2009). Previous to that we have had no contact, and I assume you got my name from posts I have made on other FG blogs.
In your message to me you asked if I was aware of Mr. da Rosa's alleged "public libel and defamation" of someone else whom I also don't know. You then cut-and-pasted and sent me a number of previous posts related to this issue. I responded to your e-mail the same day with a question to you, and I have yet to receive an answer to that question.
In case you have not kept a copy of my e-mail response to you on April 9, I reproduce it below to refresh your memory. If you will answer my question openly and "from the heart," then I will answer yours.
My e-mail below was time stamped 4/9/2009 10:22 AM:
-----------------
LM:
I have seen these posts and am aware of the issues. Since you don't know me, may I ask what role you hoped for me to play in this?
JR
----- Original Message -----
From: Lou Martuneac
To: jreitman4@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:27 AM
Subject: Fwd: Rumor of Child Molestation: Mr. Truth Detector- Detected
Jim:
ReplyDeleteI have it right, you are the agent4him (James Reitman) I contacted today as l as previously contacted. Got your details from your blogger profile page yesterday as I did before; OK!
I sent you the proof of Antonio's public libel and defamation of a brother in Christ by rumoring he is a child molester because: 1) Antonio twice publicly denied it, 2) anyone in close contact with a man who acts in criminal ways deserve to know, 3) da Rosa is still unrepentant. Public sin requires public confession, apology and genuine repentance. To date, just as with his habitual plagiarism and Sock Puppet: fg me, he is only sorry he was caught. Hardly genuine repentance I’m sure you would agree.
Now, I am hopeful you will give a straight answer to a straight up question in this thread. It is quite obvious you were taken aback with da Rosa admitting he believes the unsaved can openly deny the deity of Christ, His death and/or resurrection, but still be born again.
Here is my question, please favor Dr. Lybrand and all readers here with your reply.
Do you (Jim/any GES person) agree or disagree with Antonio da Rosa who stated, “Yes a (lost) person can…one could (consciously) deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?”
Do you agree with Antonio da Rosa, speaking on behalf of the GES interpretation of the Gospel, clearly affirming he believes a lost man can deny the deity of Christ, His death and/or resurrection, but still be born again?
LM
Antonio, I'm going to make my reply to as brief as is possible. I'm sorry to report that this doesn't mean my response is going to be short.
ReplyDeleteI feel compelled to thank you for providing an answer. I know that you did so knowing full well the risk you were taking. I do not believe this to be an assumption at all, based on your reluctance to answer and finally the extra information that you provided along with your answer. I want you to know that I recognize you took a risk. The people who have been involved in this discussion for recent history are in a better position now because of the risk you took.
I will now briefly address your response to my answer. You claimed that anyone quoting your answer without the supporting information would be abusive, but this was right after you did the same for me. You asked me to be absolutely clear, and I did my best to be so.
Do I have to explain the Gospel using other Scriptures, absolutely. However, there is nothing missing from the Gospel as Paul declares it. I believe I made this clear in my answer. Paul's statements of "in accordance with the Scriptures" covers these points that I provided clarification on for your benefit.
You noted "In all reality, your list here illustrates the complexity of the fundamentalist gospel." My Biblical answer to you is this - it doesn't matter how complex it is. It's God's Gospel, He wrote the requirements, He performed it, and He wrote the testimony of His completing it. Who cares how complex it might seem?
I now have two answers from experience. The President of my ministry has a 7 year old son who can explain the Gospel in detail, and is able to preach it. His simple child-like faith, actually coming from a child, is that it is simply true. It doesn't matter how complex something can be made out to be, the Gospel can simply be believed.
You claimed that some of the points contradicted each other. The idea that Christ paid the price, but that in order for someone to come to Christ they must first know they are guilty.
A person is a guilty sinner until they believe the Gospel and are thus saved and reborn. That is Scripture.. we can argue about that another time if you like.
You make note that I have to use other Scriptures to explain the Gospel. You're absolutely correct. Depending on how deep you wish to understand the Gospel I will have to use almost all of the Bible.
Paul explained the salvation experience by saying that Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. He did not say that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of John. Or the Word of Paul. Or the Word of Peter.
The Gospel is fully expressed in 1 Cor 15:1-11, but to explain the Gospel much other scripture is needed. This is not a problem for someone who honors the Word of God.
Finally you open your reply to me by noting how many things a person must "do" to be saved. The only thing a person must "do" is change their mind from disbelief to belief. Which is the exact same answer given every single time someone asked what they must "do" to be saved in Scripture.
Now on to your answer. You said that someone can deny the facts of the Gospel and still be saved.
Yes that is going to be used as a soundbite - why? Because it is a perfect answer to the simple question.
Your further answer to "What must a man do to be saved?"
"Simply believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life"Sounds simple enough. However, that is not the testimony of Scripture as has been shown to you numerous times. The actual Scripture answer to that says "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved..." Acts 16
But let's examine your answer for a moment.
What does "believe" mean?
Who is "Jesus Christ"?
What is "eternal life"?
Can I just believe that He(or he as you believe) will give me something called "Eternal Life" and that's what I'll get. Just that? I don't have to have Him (him) around do I?
Your stated answer is so ambiguous that it is meaningless. Even the Apostle explained the "Word of the Lord" to the Jailer who asked him "What must I do to be saved?"
Antonio, some will dance around the subject. I can not. I DO thank you for answering this question. We have all of us known what the answer would be for as long as we've been asking it. Even most of the people following you have known, but have not wanted it to be stated.
You are a preacher of heresy. It breaks my heart to say such a thing. Please, please. Shut off the computer. Take a vacation and just read the Scriptures pouring out your heart to God. Please Antonio. I'm writing to you now, as though God Himself were pleading with you to be reconciled to Him.
This isn't about what you say you preach. Lots of preachers make mistakes... even knowingly say the wrong thing. Some stand up and say the right thing but all the while they counsel people against what they say at the pulpit. You have allowed your voice to be added to this last group.
I want no wrath for you. I need no payment for the sin. I'm desperated for you to please cast of the GES heresy that you have adopted. Stand up for the clear truth of the Scriptures.
Antonio you yourself don't need to be strong enough to do it. Please before Holy God, ask Him to do it for you. I'm so scared for you. I'm terrified for those who come under this evil influence. I shudder for the souls of those who think they are saved because they believed some guy named Jesus for Eternal Life. I trust my faithful God that if they start to receive that He will give them what the need to be saved - I have no choice but to pray that they will continue to seek.
Many gain entertainment from our arguments, and the political games but this is life and death. Antonio, you are leading people to their destruction. You are robbing glory from our God. You are using His Name in vain. You are despising the Gospel.
You are breaking my heart.
Kev
Antonio,
ReplyDeleteThe second answer from experience was that I commonly give this Gospel in a minute.Sorry I left this out of my first reply to you.
Kev
Mr. Martuneac:
ReplyDeleteYou said:
Hardly genuine repentance I'm sure you would agree.
On the contrary, I do not agree.
I asked you a simple question that you did not answer. I did not ask you why you e-mailed me all the information you had archived on Mr. da Rosa. I suspect that I already know why, though I hope I am proved wrong.
I asked:
Since you don't know me, may I ask what role you hoped for me to play in this?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo All:
ReplyDeleteI believe it was Gojira who earlier expressed some concern over what this debate may be doing to the Free Grace (FG) movement as a whole. I want to reassure him (and all) that this current debate is doing a great deal of GOOD for the Free Grace community. How so?
A Synopsis:For the better part of 10 years the Grace Evangelical Society (GES), under Hodges and Wilkin, has steadily fallen into worsening forms of false teaching on several points of doctrine, primarily the Gospel. Those outside the FG camp have long been under the grossly erroneous impression that GES is the representative voice of the at large FG camp. That is a SERIOUS misnomer that has been in sore need of correction.
Linking all FG men to the reductionism of GES is a public relations disaster, but a worthy cause to address and correct. That misnomer is being corrected, slowly at first, but now with the FGA official statement and Brother Lybrand’s OPEN LETTER many outside the FG camp are seeing in stark terms that the GES is an aberrant movement that is far to the extreme left of any respectable, balanced Bible-believing fellowship.
Antonio is providing a treasure trove of insight in to the reductionist heresy that was originated by Hodges and today propagated by no one out side the GES fellowship. In 36 hours da Rosa who IS speaking for Bob Wilkin’s GES Crossless gospel has proven how and why the GES Gospel is an egregious assault on the content of saving faith.
On April 23 the following exchange took place at this (the Fred Lybrand) blog. The opening question was posted to da Rosa by my friend and blog partner, Kevl.
Kevl asked, “Can a person be Eternally Saved while at the moment of Salvation deny or not know that Jesus is God, that He died for the person's personal sins on the Cross, that He was raised from the dead on the third day?
Antonio (speaking on behalf of the GES Crossless Gospel) answered Kev’s question this way,
“Yes, a person can…one could (consciously) deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?”
Conclusion:The Free Grace movement is coming through and will come out of this current debate stronger that what is was going in.
The need is NOT for numbers! The need is NOT for ecumenical compromise, which Rose and Michele have been begging for. The need is NOT for a façade of unity with the teachers of GES reductionism at the expense of fidelity to God and His Word. The need IS for purity before God and a clear conscience, which can only be achieved in the FG community by forsaking fellowship with the GES teachers of reductionist heresy.
The GES Gospel is no gospel at all, it is an anti-biblical error. The GES Crossless gospel is NOT a builder; it is a destroyer! It is a destroyer of souls and a destroyer of the body of Christ. I do not worry nearly as much about the unsaved false teachers without the church, as I do about the termites on the inside.
The GES is a shrinking cell of extremist termites trying to chip away at the foundation of our faith, THE GOSPEL. They are being and must continually be driven toward and isolated into the extremist corner of the Christian community that they now occupy.
The GES, by its own hand, especially through the writing of the likes of Antonio da Rosa and his followers has become a spectacle wonder and stunned amazement for the world wide body of Christ.
The GES will for decades serve as a stark and tragic example of what becomes of otherwise good men once they are deceived by and become the prime instigators of an all out attack on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We will be able to point the unsuspecting to the reductionism of GES, what it did to those who fell into the trap of the Crossless gospel
The long needed hard lines of division are being clearly drawn between GES Gospel reductionist heresy and the rest of the FG community that rejects the GES Crossless gospel.
Believers must NEVER relent, or let down our guard for moment when it comes to the GES and its advocates. They must NEVER be give an opportunity to gain any kind of traction for the Crossless gospel beyond the borders of its own extremist membership. We must NEVER cease to : “mark” so that others will, “avoid” GES and the possibility of falling into the trap of the Crossless gospel.
The GES men have rejected every admonition in regard to the heresy of the Crossless gospel. There have been many attempts to admonish them according to the Scriptures. The GES men either will not discuss their views, or reject any admonish they receive and there have been many admonitions given.
Most attempts to dialogue teach and/or admonish are rejected. They reject and sometimes react with gross hostility and the most heinous libel imaginable when admonished to turn from the heresy of Zane Hodges’s Crossless, Deityless and Resurrectionless GES Gospel. We, therefore, have no choice, but to follow the biblical mandate that calls on us to “reject” them (Titus 3:10).
Pray for the remnant of the GES people to be recovered from and repent of the Crossless gospel. Lord willing they will one day set aside their fierce, emotional attachment to their departed leader, Zane Hodges. IMO, the allegiance to Hodges is blocking them from listening to or considering for the slightest moment that Hodges may have been wrong.
If GES people will set aside their emotions just long enough to listen and let the Spirit do His convincing work they yet one day may repent of the Crossless gospel. Let’s pray to that end. Until then, contend for truth.
LM
Acts 20:28-31; Romans 16:17-18, Titus 3:10.I will be posting this at my blog in the very near future.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJim Reitman (agent4Him):
ReplyDeleteSince you believe you have the answer please, by all means, enlighten all of us. In the meantime, see the next...
LM
Jim Reitman (agent4Him):
ReplyDeletePlease reassure Dr. Lybrand, his readers and I that you will NOT be dodging a doctrinal question.
Please tell us you are not going to adopt the unethical antics and political gamesmanship of Antonio da Rosa who evaded and dodged Kev's question for two years until yesterday.
Please tell us you are NOT afraid to answer a simple, unvarnished question in simple unvarnished terms.
You are certainly more mature in years than da Rosa, please reassure everyone you intend to be more mature than da Rosa in your handling of a question. Will you give everyone that reassurance? Will you?
Please reassure everyone you will NOT continue with this evasion and dodge of a question that IMO you believe the right, obvious and honest answer from you will be VERY damaging for da Rosa and the GES.
Please reassure everyone that you are NOT trying to hide your true feelings about Antonio’s stark revelation on the content of saving faith.
Please now, reassure everyone that you have an ethical and moral compass by answering this question; OK?
Do you Jim (and any GES person) agree or disagree with Antonio da Rosa who stated, “Yes a (lost) person can…one could (consciously) deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?”
Do you agree with Antonio da Rosa, speaking on behalf of the GES interpretation of the Gospel, clearly affirming he believes a lost man can deny the deity of Christ, His death and/or resurrection, but still be born again?
LM
Dear Fred and Mr. Martuneac,
ReplyDeleteFred, I'm truly sorry I stepped into the cross-fire, here. I had hoped to help clarify some of the talking-past-one-another, because I have better come to know a few of the parties to this debate and I naively thought that my age and my experience in mediating ethical conflict might be of some use in the public debate going on in Free Grace circles. Please forgive my presumption.
For the record, I have no formal affiliation with either GES or FGA. I submitted a paper to GES this year, because I had done some recent work on Romans 5 in preparation for a sermon ("Going Deeper into Free Grace") that was germane to both Free Grace and the topic of the conference, Cross and Resurrection. I was lucky to have the paper accepted at the last minute because of cancellations.
I have made no direct financial contributions to either organization other than registration fees for conferences in 2008 and 2009. My book is sold in the GES online bookstore, in part because of positive reviews by others whose opinion Bob Wilkin apparently trusts, even though the book does not deal with the current issues at stake.
I began tracking FG blogs about 5 months ago or so, again on the recommendation of a friend; I have no "dog in this hunt" other than to "sow the fruit of righteousness in peace," as I have come to know and love some of the folks in the FG movement more and more. As a result of my prior relationships with certain people who belong to GES and FGA, I was invited to participate in ongoing "roundtable" talks about these issues (convened by Steve Lewis). These talks began on Mar 30, 2009, and as far as I know, the other parties consider me to be "neutral," but I haven't conducted a survey.
---------------------------------------
Mr. Martuneac, you prejudge me and don't know anything about me, other than what I have written for public consumption. As for my "ethical and moral compass," you and I have no basis for trust, so it would be futile for me to respond; you simply don't know me and seem to assume the worst.
As far as your "opinion" about my reasons for addressing Kevl's question to Mr. da Rosa, you are mistaken. Moreover, you have not given me an honest answer from the heart to a question I had when you first initiated contact with me. You contacted me, and I asked in good faith over 2 weeks ago how you expected me to respond to your concerns about Mr. da Rosa; I still don't know, and you are not at all forthcoming. Hence, I feel no moral or ethical obligation to answer your question.
All,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to briefly respond to the question about the future of the Free Grace Movement.
I am a Senior Pastor in the Evangelical Free Church...and we just came through a 'spirited discussion' on refreshing the doctrinal statement. The first motivator was the Open Theism question...but soon it included removing Premillenialism from the EFree statement.
I along with many others wrestled with this...and we finally came to keep the Premill view as part of our clear and prominent beliefs (the new statement was adopted...and so reset the clock for many years). I think the Free Church turned out stronger for the debate...but, the Enemy is always at work.
Here too in the Free Grace Movement we will be stronger. Frankly, we haven't had much leadership among Free Gracer's for some time. There are lots of different groups.
I'd like to invite everyone to join us at www.freegracealliance.com as as a part of pulling us together.
My personal conviction is that GES (as you can read in my Open Letter) has left the Movement; happening over a period of years. I know they think they have refined it Free Grace Theology, but the basic elements of Free Grace Theology are really crumbling inside the GES universe. I think GES should just be a different Movement...and see if God honors it.
We've needed to get back on track, and I can tell you the quality of the folks coming together is encouraging (OK...and a few folks are kinda grumpy too).
The history of the church has always been one of wrestling and rebirth...always back to truth, back to grace, and back to faith.
Here's how I sign my FGA email now:
Fred
Fred R. Lybrand, D.Min
Free Grace Alliance, President
Growing the Free Grace Movement Worldwide
It's that 'growing' part I'm most hopeful about.
God bless,
FRL
Mr. Reitman
ReplyDeleteYou have chosen the same evasion and dodge that is so common among GES men.
Theologically and ethically bankrupt. That is the testimony of men in and/or sympathetic to the GES Ceossless heresy. Sad !
LM
Antonio,
ReplyDeleteI can't find the comment I posted earlier so I've decided to post it again.
Antonio, I'm going to make my reply to as brief as is possible. I'm sorry to report that this doesn't mean my response is going to be short.
I feel compelled to thank you for providing an answer. I know that you did so knowing full well the risk you were taking. I do not believe this to be an assumption at all, based on your reluctance to answer and finally the extra information that you provided along with your answer. I want you to know that I recognize you took a risk. The people who have been involved in this discussion for recent history are in a better position now because of the risk you took.
I will now briefly address your response to my answer. You claimed that anyone quoting your answer without the supporting information would be abusive, but this was right after you did the same for me. You asked me to be absolutely clear, and I did my best to be so.
Do I have to explain the Gospel using other Scriptures, absolutely. However, there is nothing missing from the Gospel as Paul declares it. I believe I made this clear in my answer. Paul's statements of "in accordance with the Scriptures" covers these points that I provided clarification on for your benefit.
You noted "In all reality, your list here illustrates the complexity of the fundamentalist gospel." My Biblical answer to you is this - it doesn't matter how complex it is. It's God's Gospel, He wrote the requirements, He performed it, and He wrote the testimony of His completing it. Who cares how complex it might seem?
I now have two answers from experience. The President of my ministry has a 7 year old son who can explain the Gospel in detail, and is able to preach it. His simple child-like faith, actually coming from a child, is that it is simply true. It doesn't matter how complex something can be made out to be, the Gospel can simply be believed.
The second answer from experience was that I commonly give this Gospel in a minute.
You claimed that some of the points contradicted each other. The idea that Christ paid the price, but that in order for someone to come to Christ they must first know they are guilty.
A person is a guilty sinner until they believe the Gospel and are thus saved and reborn. That is Scripture.. we can argue about that another time if you like.
You make note that I have to use other Scriptures to explain the Gospel. You're absolutely correct. Depending on how deep you wish to understand the Gospel I will have to use almost all of the Bible.
Paul explained the salvation experience by saying that Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. He did not say that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of John. Or the Word of Paul. Or the Word of Peter.
The Gospel is fully expressed in 1 Cor 15:1-11, but to explain the Gospel much other scripture is needed. This is not a problem for someone who honors the Word of God.
Finally you open your reply to me by noting how many things a person must "do" to be saved. The only thing a person must "do" is change their mind from disbelief to belief. Which is the exact same answer given every single time someone asked what they must "do" to be saved in Scripture.
Now on to your answer. You said that someone can deny the facts of the Gospel and still be saved.
Yes that is going to be used as a soundbite - why? Because it is a perfect answer to the simple question.
Your further answer to "What must a man do to be saved?"
"Simply believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life"Sounds simple enough. However, that is not the testimony of Scripture as has been shown to you numerous times. The actual Scripture answer to that says "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved..." Acts 16
But let's examine your answer for a moment.
What does "believe" mean?
Who is "Jesus Christ"?
What is "eternal life"?
Can I just believe that He(or he as you believe) will give me something called "Eternal Life" and that's what I'll get. Just that? I don't have to have Him (him) around do I?
Your stated answer is so ambiguous that it is meaningless. Even the Apostle explained the "Word of the Lord" to the Jailer who asked him "What must I do to be saved?"
Antonio, some will dance around the subject. I can not. I DO thank you for answering this question. We have all of us known what the answer would be for as long as we've been asking it. Even most of the people following you have known, but have not wanted it to be stated.
You are a preacher of heresy. It breaks my heart to say such a thing. Please, please. Shut off the computer. Take a vacation and just read the Scriptures pouring out your heart to God. Please Antonio. I'm writing to you now, as though God Himself were pleading with you to be reconciled to Him.
This isn't about what you say you preach. Lots of preachers make mistakes... even knowingly say the wrong thing. Some stand up and say the right thing but all the while they counsel people against what they say at the pulpit. You have allowed your voice to be added to this last group.
I want no wrath for you. I need no payment for the sin. I'm desperated for you to please cast of the GES heresy that you have adopted. Stand up for the clear truth of the Scriptures.
Antonio you yourself don't need to be strong enough to do it. Please before Holy God, ask Him to do it for you. I'm so scared for you. I'm terrified for those who come under this evil influence. I shudder for the souls of those who think they are saved because they believed some guy named Jesus for Eternal Life. I trust my faithful God that if they start to receive that He will give them what the need to be saved - I have no choice but to pray that they will continue to seek.
Many gain entertainment from our arguments, and the political games but this is life and death. Antonio, you are leading people to their destruction. You are robbing glory from our God. You are using His Name in vain. You are despising the Gospel.
You are breaking my heart.
Kev
Wow what a strange thing.. the updated thread loads if I make a comment.. but if I just click on the comments link from Fred's blog I get an older version of the thread.
ReplyDeleteSTRANGE
Antonio- reply to Jan (April 23, 2009 8:24 PM)
ReplyDeleteThank you for your reply Antonio.
You said:
“I believe that these things are part of the gospel too!”I did not say they were part of the gospel. I said they WERE the gospel. We did not say the same thing here. There is no “too.” While I hope to be gracious to you (I am no where near as good at that as Kev or Dr. Fred, alas, but I'll do my level best), the reality is we are not in agreement and that in ways I feel are very significant.
“...there is no passage that states that one has eternal life, is born again, is eternally saved, or justified by believing the gospel.”If you are looking for that exact wording, no there is not an individual passage that does that. However, there are passages that communicate that information using other words. I am thinking just now of John 6:51-58. You cannot get any clearer than “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life.” in verse 54. This is as especially important passage for our discussion as the GES love to appeal to John 6:47. It is evident that Christ identifies believing in Him as eating His flesh and drinking His blood. It is a specific element He is requiring us to deal with, namely His sacrifice for us. He alludes to His death when He says “the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” in verse 51. In fact, since you are so focused on the believing/eternal life connection it is a wonder in deed that you do not prefer verse 54 over verse 47. Both verses reference eternal life (or everlasting life. I think we agree the terms are synonymous.) But verse 54 is far more specific than verse 47 and tells you what believing in Christ means.
In light of this, I see your statement that “there is no passage that states one has eternal life....by believing the gospel” as a dangerous distraction from the need to “eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood” to have eternal life. Your statement amounts to little more than an excuse (and not a very good one, IMO) to avoid verses like John 6:54 which indicate that the way one believes Jesus for eternal life is to accept His substitutionary atoning work on the cross where His flesh and blood were given for our sins, which acceptance results in eternal life. Verse 55 says “for My flesh is food indeed and My blood is drink indeed.” He does NOT say “for my promise of eternal life is food and drink indeed.” Nor does He say “he who believes I give eternal life shall have eternal life from Me” or anything to that effect. He DOES say, “he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life.” This is really straightforward. What does one do to get eternal life? Believe Jesus gives it, or eat His flesh and drink His blood? The text tells us plainly. It is certainly true that He does give eternal life. It is misleading to say that He gives eternal life to those who trust Him for it, or ask Him for it or however you frame it. But it is stated plainly and in so many words that He gives eternal life to those who eat His flesh and drink His blood. I am surprised you did not notice this. Or perhaps you did notice it and rejected it somewhere along the line.
“Tradition has informed the usage of the term "gospel" and does not conform to the actual lexical data for the word in its usage.”This is irrelevant. We are not talking about the word “gospel.”
“In the issue of loading the content of saving faith, your position has arbitrarily chosen to import into the content of saving faith these items. There is no objective hermeneutical standard by which your position deems one essential truth about the Savior to be necessary content and another essential truth about the Savior to not be saving content.”Oh dear. This comment almost certainly needs a response but I am unable to give one as I don't know what you said here. I'm afraid you lost me on this one. Is there a “GESese for Dummies” manual available? Apparently I need one. :(
“It is one consideration to weigh all of the data about Jesus Christ and deem certain things about Him to be strong evidence inviting and encouraging men and women to place their trust in Him for eternal life, and it is another consideration altogether to determine using subjective biblical synthesis those items that are God-mandated requirements for eternal life....
In conclusion, there is a difference between determining those strong evidences that will increasingly invite men and women to place their faith in Jesus for everlasting life, and determining, through proper exegetical care and biblical "synthesis" the supposed God-mandated multiple doctrines residing within saving faith. ”Oh. I see now. When you do it, it is “weighing all of the data...deem[ing] certain things about Him strong evidence” which facilitates trust in Him for eternal life. But when we do it, it is “using subjective biblical synthesis” to determine (subjectively and, hence, arbitrarily) what are the God-mandated requirements for eternal life. So the difference is all in who is handling the data and what the motive is behind the ones doing the handling. You are clean because your motive is to facilitate trust in Christ. We are not clean because our motive is to make something up that we will call the gospel by cherry picking facts about Jesus. That we both decided on the same set of facts, though interesting, is really irrelevant. The important thing is that we arbitrarily cherry picked while you sifted through the same data with purposeful intent. Excuse me for being snarky, but this is frankly insulting.
I am not going to quote your final analogy only because it is too lengthy to be quoted. I will just describe it and let the reader refer back to your post if desired. The analogy is that God is house 1 (H1) and man is house 2 (H2). Sin is an impenetrable, insurmountable wall/barrier between H1 and H2. This barrier has been removed by the cross. All that remains is for man to move into God's house by faith. The problem with the analogy is that it mis locates where sin is. Sin is not a barrier between God and man that resides outside of God and outside of man. Of course sin is not in God. But it is in man. In each man. And is not simply removed from man because of the cross per se. Sin is the nature of fallen man in our fallen father, Adam. This barrier is within each of us and must be removed (positionally and judicially, at this point in history. Actually, at death, or when we are raptured) per person. The cross only removes (judicially) the barrier of sin when the sinner accepts that his sin has been judged in Christ. Otherwise, the sinner is still in his sins and under the judgment of them. This is why we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. In John 6:56, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him.” Until we are in Him we are in Adam and under the judgment of sin. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:22, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” John 6:56 tells us we get in Christ by eating His flesh and drinking His blood. I Cor tells us we are made alive in Him. Therefore, in order to be made alive we must get out of Adam and into Christ. And in order to get into Christ we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. It is by eating His flesh and drinking His blood that we get in Him and have eternal life. This is the promise. Not merely that Jesus gives eternal life to whoever trusts Him for it.
I would write more but it is getting late and I must turn in for the night.
JanH
Kev, Antonio mentioned earlier that once a thread reaches 200 comments, Blogger creates a new page for comments after that. So that's probably what you're seeing, simply the first 200 comments. At the top and bottom of the thread you should see a link to "Newer" or "Newest", if you click on that you'll see the latest comments.
ReplyDeleteOr just subscribe by email, or use a reader. :-)
Fred:
ReplyDeleteI sincerely appreciate your OPEN LETTER on the GES Crossless, Promise- ONLY Gospel. I also appreciate your participation in this thread.
For me one of the most helpful things that came out of this long thread is Antonio’s long awaited admission that he and the GES believe the lost man can consciously deny the deity, death and/or resurrection of Christ, but still be born again.
We all knew that is the position of Antonio and GES. We knew that they have been keeping that fact under raps, but we an thank Antonio for revealing this in clear, unequivocal terms.
Kevl asked Antonio, “Can a person be Eternally Saved while at the moment of Salvation deny or not know that Jesus is God, that He died for the person's personal sins on the Cross, that He was raised from the dead on the third day?
Antonio (speaking on behalf of the GES Crossless Gospel) answered Kev’s question this way,
“Yes, a person can…one could (consciously) deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?”
That clear, unequivocal admission settles any lingering doubt as to whether not the GES Crossless gospel is not just heresy, but the most extreme form ever introduced to the New Testament church.
Of course, Brother Reitman and no GES advocate or sympathizer will ever respond to my question as to whether or not they agree with Antonio’s admission. They will dodge and evade that one at any cost, as Reitman demonstrated this evening.
LM
PS: Long shot here, but is it possible Wilkin is going to take da Rosa to the woodshed for revealing the conscience denial of the Lord's deity, death and resurrection position of the GES Gospel.
Hey Rachel, thanks. Unfortunately since your post is in the 200's I had to figure it out just to get to see your helpful comment. LOL
ReplyDeleteYup I'm not the sharpest tack in the box...
Kev
This thread has proven to be far more beneficial than many on here might think or even know.
ReplyDeleteBro. Lou, since the Lord has blessed me through GES in the past, I would like to answer your question, even though you have not specifically asked me yet. I appreciate my brother Antonio, but as you may know, we do not agree on everything, as none of us do. But no, I do not agree with his statement that one could actively deny these things while having genuinely been born again. I remember Diane once making a salient comment with which I do agree, & that was that even though one may not know about some of these truths at the moment of initial trust in Christ for salvation, much like our brother (sister?) Lu Mo Nyet, but because it is God's Spirit Who points us to Christ in the first place, then I do not believe one could actively deny these things when being informed of them & then truly have been born again. But I also know that in defense of bro. Antonio (no pun intended!) he also adds that this is virtually an impossible scenario anyway. Yet, since you wanted an answer, I wanted to give it.
ReplyDeleteDouglas,
ReplyDeleteI have appreciated our interactions from the time we were on that Christian message board. I believe we have grown quite a bit. I also appreciated your input when I had that psuedo debate with Dr. Wallace.
I am also glad that this thread has been informative to you. It is quite interesting, though, the integrity of some here on this thread. Glee is had that I provided an answer that made a great sound-bite wherewith to continue to misrepresent me. My answer had a significant qualification that Mr. Wyatt picked up, but to include that on the various Fundamentalist message boards would be to erase the shock value of my statement.
I wonder if it is equally shocking to note that the Apostle Peter professes that Jesus is the Christ, a saving conviction (see 1 John 5:1), in one breath, and denies Christ's death and resurrection in the very next. This shows that both considerations are mutually exclusive.
Apparently it is possible that one, in this case the Apostle Peter, may believe that Jesus is the Christ (which is a saving conviction) and at the same time deny Christ's death and resurrection.
Quite sad, but biblically accurate.
Antonio
Jimmy,
ReplyDeletethe pleasure is all mine in discussing these matters with you. I am glad that this week and weekend have been cleared somewhat of the normal insanity that goes on in a household with children.
you write:
----------
In these statements, you appear to place importance on one believing the "N.T." Jesus for the promise of eternal life. Why is this important in your mind?
----------
In the consideration of what one must do to have eternal life, we note that Jesus, speaking in the authority of the Father, was pleased to require nothing more for us but to believe in Him.
Esentially, to receive eternal life, on the authority of Jesus Christ, Himself, and the authority of the Father, who gave the words to Jesus, one must simply:
believe in Jesus (for eternal life)
The condition is made up of the right thing (faith) and the right person (the N.T. Jesus of Nazareth).
If one fulfills the condition of exercising the right thing (faith) in the right person (the N.T. Jesus) then the person has eternal life.
The right thing (faith) in the wrong person, lets say, Jesus Espinoza who works in the barrio, is not saving faith. Our faith must be directed into the N.T. Jesus.
I hope this answers your question.
warmly,
Antonio da Rosa
Antonio (All):
ReplyDeleteGlee has been had, yes! Glee that you finally were honest and that you gave the rest of the Christian church proof-positive that GES is the propagator of the most extreme form of reductionist heresy in NT church history.
I love the “sound-byte” bit. The “sound byte” clearly defines the core of your GES reductionist heresy that was originated by Zane Hodges. There is no “shock value.” What you finally disclosed IS SHOCKING in its own right.
You finally admitted that you believe the lost can consciously deny the deity, death and/or resurrection of Christ and can still be born again at that moment. Nothing more needed. Frankly, your planet xxxxx follow-up is simply absurd and idiotic. You would have done well not to post planet xxxx, since it even further damages your system and exposes the anti-biblical nature of your thought process.
Then we have the further proof of your disclosure. You believe that in personal evangelism when witnessing to a lost Mormon it does not matter if he expresses belief in the promise of eternal life from his Mormon Jesus he believes to be the half-brother of the Devil. You are on record stating, “The Mormon Jesus & Evangelical Jesus are One and the Same.” BTW, JReitman played your dodge and evade card here yesterday. Why do you suppose no one at GES wants to step up and share their agreement or disagreement with your belief that the unsaved can openly deny the deity of Jesus, His death and resurrection?
You have my promise that no matter where you or any GES Crossless advocates go on the Internet, out side your own blogs, I and others will be right there to expose who you are, what you have been up to and most important the reductionist heresy of Hodges and Wilkin with which you assault the Person and finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I am going to do all that I can to see the GES never breaks out beyond it rapidly shrinking cell of doctrinal extremist and sympathizers.
LM
PS to Antonio: You’re the one to talk about misrepresentation! You are a habitual plagiarist, your Sock Puppet stunt and the most heinous you publicly libeled and defamed a brother in Christ by rumoring him to be a child molester. Not to mention the way you twice last year bushwhacked Dr. Lybrand by publicizing private discussions at UoG he had with you to demonize him and give yourself an advantage. All of which you never genuinely repented of.
David:
ReplyDeleteI'll respond to you later. Did not see your reply above until just now. Glad someone, who is sympathetic the GES Crossles camp, replied to my question.
Lou
Fred,
ReplyDeleteI wrote this:
The theology of checklist evangelism does not hold up under scrutiny. And the illustration that there are so many opinions and positions on the gospel in the FGA is only one item which shows its deficiency.To which you responded:
----------
Somehow you think GES Unity is a proof of validity.
----------
I have not used the unity of the GES' position as a proof of validity, although such could be worked into a much broader argument with a greater scope.
No. The point of my statement is to show that the FGA's many views on the gospel shows a fundamental flaw. They can't even agree amongst themselves on some pretty serious issues concerning the "gospel".
There is no objective hermeneutical process by which one can determine one essential truth about Jesus Christ to be necessary to be believed for eternal life and deem another essential truth about Jesus Christ non-essential to saving faith. Once the objective pronouncements of Jesus Christ are disregarded for tradition, the whole of the Bible becomes the potential hunting grounds for the precise content of saving faith. Such "hermeneutics" often is colored beyond repair by one's traditionalistic background.
Are we to trust the FGA and their leaders on the gospel, when they cannot come to a concensus about the critical components that precisely make up the content of saving faith?
Who am I to trust, Fred? You? J.B. Hixson? Tom Stegall? Dave Anderson? When you all are not saying the same thing!
In essence, the FGA evangelist has made himself out to be the authority. When asked, "What must I do to be saved?" The FGA evangelist does not have an authoratative, "Thus saith the Lord!" Only a, "Thus saith the evangelist!"
No passage, or passages directly lines up with the way the invitation is given by FGA evangelists. They must piece together a patchwork quilt, play scriptural hopscotch, and at the end of the day, they still do not have a pronouncement of the Lord.
No. I maintain that you do not know the depth of the flaw that paints your position. J.B. Hixson's "gospel" is not the same as Tom Stegall's. Either one or both of them is preaching a gospel that can't save anyone, for they require different understandings and doctrines to be beleived for salvation. They are not saying the same thing!
I put no trust in the confusing and arbitrary pronouncements of FGA evangelists. If you can't show me your position clearly from the Bible, and give me a pronouncement of God that after I beleive:
this
this
this
this
this
and
this
I have eternal life, you have lost all credibility with those who seek to find solace and peace in the pages of the New Testament concerning their eternal destiny.
Yet I can show the lost the authoratative pronouncements of Jesus Christ who was speaking in the authority of the Father that whoever believes in Him has eternal life and will never perish. Here is where their peace lies, in the objective promise of Jesus Christ.
As pertaining your assertion that the GES has a checklist, you would be right. It is a one condition checklist!
Question: How do I have eternal life?
Answer: Believe in Jesus for it
From the standpoint of logical expression, the condition given by Jesus Christ, and expressed by the GES is a simple condition.
Break it up however you want, Fred. the FGA has 5+ conditions (as Kevin has showed above, he has 14) to be saved. But Jesus Christ states and the GES relates that one has eternal life simply by beleiving in Jesus. One condition, simple, and unadultered.
But the FGA has multiple conditions, and arguably, has multiple objects of faith.
In FGA theology, doctrine itself becomes one of its objects of saving faith.
warmly,
Antonio
Lou,
ReplyDeleteNo further response needed. Thanks & God Bless.
Michelle:
ReplyDeleteYou state,
----------------------------------------------
"The thing is, the Bible simply doesn't tell us what precisely must be believed to be born again."
-----------------------------------------------
While tragic in and of itself, it's one thing for a professing believer to say he/she doesn't know what must be believed in order to be born-again, but to even suggest that the Bible doesn't give us this information is to assault God’s character. Please take a moment to consider how this is so. Lest you be tempted to protest that I did not include your usage of the word “precisely”, it is a moot point. Either God has stated in His Word what must be believed in order to receive eternal life, or He hasn't.
Question(s) for Michelle:
1. As a professing believer, how is it that you have any personal assurance of salvation when you don't know what must be believed in order to be born-again?
2. Moreover, why would you even try to reach someone with the gospel if God's Word hasn't told you what this gospel is that must be believed in order to be born-again?
Men/Women:
Let all who profess Christ get this straight for His sake. There is no minimum or maximum content of saving faith. Fred is right; there is only THE GOSPEL as stated plainly in Scripture. We can rebeliousely argue with God over what that gospel is, but He won't budge. His Word has been forever settled regardless the futile fight man puts up against it.
For those who do not know (but sincerely want to know) what must be believed in order to receive eternal life (i.e. the gospel), let us go to the pages of Scripture…
1. "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe THE GOSPEL" (Mark 1:15--my emphasis in caps). It need not be argued that Jesus said what He said in order that people would follow His instruction and thereby be born-again. This was His mission. What again was our Savior's instruction unto salvation? First, repent (will get to this in a moment) and Second, believe the gospel.
Again, what is to be believed? Jesus told us plainly—The Gospel. Ok, so what is this gospel?...
2. "Moreover brethren, I declare unto you THE GOSPEL...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:1-4--my emphasis in caps).
There it is in black and white. Paul couldn't have stated it more plainly..."I declare unto you the gopel THAT...." CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS AND ROSE AGAIN FROM THE DEAD. This is the gospel one must believe in order to be born-again. Now, and please catch this, implicit in this gospel is the truth that Jesus is God. Must the prospective believer aknowledge this truth in order to be born-again. Yes! Why? Because Jesus Himself tells us so!:
"I said therefore unto you that you shall die in your sins, for if you believe not that I AM, you shall die in your sins" (John 8:24). So implicit in believing Jesus died for our sins and rose again, is the required knowledge that He is God (i.e. I AM). If we refuse to acknowledge this truth, we will die in our sins. Now, we can go into all the reasons why Jesus thought it necessary to make knowledge of His Deity a non-negotiable, but at the end of the day it doesn't change the gospel that must be believed unto salvation. He said it, that settles it!
Now to repentance: The Bible teaches us plainly that repentance means to "change one's mind". With regard to salavation, it means to change's one's mind about how one thinks he can gain eternal life. Many passages clearly show that in order to receive eternal life, man must repent from "dead works" (Heb. 6:1; Luke 13:1-5; Matthew 3:7-9, etc..). What is a dead work? Sacrements or religious rituals through which men try to reach God (Heb. 9:9-14). In short, man must "stop trusting in gaining eternal life through religion, religous ritutals, or obedience to God's laws" (thanks Ron Shea). Then he must believe the gospel.
In conclusion:
God has told us plainly in His Word the only way man can be declared not guilty of all his sins and be assured of eternal life in heaven:
Salavtion is given freely to anyone who 1. Repents from dead works and 2. Believes the gospel (A. That Jeus is God B. That He died for our sins. C. That He rose again from the dead.)
Issue settled by God's Word.
*the explanation of repentance as well as the content in my conclusion come from Ron Shea's The Gospel Booklet. I highy recommend it to all.
In His Service,
Jimmy
David:
ReplyDeleteThanks for answering. I suspect you will be the ONLY one from the GES friendly community to reply.
I do recall you were a contributor at the Crossless gospel blog Unashamed of Grace when Antonio first hinted he believed the lost can deny Christ and be saved, Matthew was straight up about it. In that time frame you ended your partnership with Antonio, Matthew and Rose at UoG blog. Was the denial of deity issue play any role in your taking yourself out of partnership with Antonio, Matthew and Rose at UoG?
“Virtually impossible” is highly debatable as I will discuss below. In any event, “virtually impossible” does NOT negate or minimize the reductionist heresy da Rosa just acknowledged as his view, which we know expresses the teaching of Hodges, Wilkin & GES.
The GES blessed you in years gone by, great! But as you are well aware the GES today is far from what it was years ago. GES has drifted away from the Bible and has morphed into an aberrant movement that is as dangerous in its theology as Lordship Salvation from other opposite end of the Gospel debate.
“virtually an impossible scenario…” It can and will happen here on planet Earth. It can happen any time GES people witness to someone who rejects the Lord’s deity. Anytime they witness to a lost man who consciously rejects the deity, death and/or resurrection of Christ, but says they believe in Jesus’ promise of eternal life (no matter who that lost man thinks Jesus is). Because the GES holds to a Crossless & Promise ONLY view GES would view that man’s belief in the promise ONLY as having resulted in a genuine conversion. That is as real as it gets!
It’s your conscience on how you can fellowship teachers of this assault on the Gospel. IMO, no one whose first loyalty is to the Lord and His Word could, in good conscience, be in fellowship with these GES teachers of the false, non-saving Crossless, Deityless gospel.
David, I believe you are a fair man. Let me give you an opportunity/challenge. In this thread and/or at Antonio’s blog, ask him this question:
“Antonio, if you are witnessing to an unsaved Mormon, and that man tells you he rejects the deity of Christ, what would your reaction be if he expressed belief in the promise of eternal life, from Jesus, whom this Mormon consciously rejects as deity and instead, believes him to be the half-brother of Satan.”? Was he born again?
Lou
Hey Antonio:
ReplyDeleteHow about a little recognition here? If I recall correctly you noted that I have 40+ "checklist" for evangelism.
I feel slighted and wounded that you would give these "checklist" lightweights recognition and overlook the outstanding and superior accompishment you subscribed to.
How about it, Antonio? I want my crown, and I want it now!!!
Lou (aka, Fritz)
:-)
I'm a checklist lightweight and proud of it!
ReplyDelete1 2 3 4 What are we trusting Jesus for?
ReplyDelete5 6 7 8 Is this enough or must we wait?
9 10 11 12 How deep in verses must we delve?
13 14 15 16 Found in Corinth capter fifteen?
18 19 20 21 I can't rhyme and so I'm done.
1 Cor 15:1-2 ...I declare to you the gospel..which also you received..by which also you are saved
I dunno... I guess since all the people in the GES seem to think that "we can't know" what exactly we must believe (receive) to be saved... I guess I'll just trust what God told the Apostle Paul to write.
I know that's a pretty big risk to take... but it seemed to work out for all the people in the Bible... I guess we'll all just have to hope the Bible is true...
Kev
Bro. Lou,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your challenge/opportunity, but let me say this, & them I am finished on this topic with you, please realize I mean no ill will with you by that. I am simply not interested in a time-sapping debate with you on this. I believe I have already answered most of what you have spoken of in your post to me. Yes, I do believe that the GES has moved away from what they once were, & therefore consists my sadness. Others, including bro. Antonio disagree with me on this, though we have no animosity toward one another in doing so. I know his love for Christ & I believe he knows mine. Yes, I also have answered on my own blog quite a bit earlier when you asked me forthrightly if that was the reason I opted out of the gracious offer from bro. Antonio to be a contributor on the UoG blog. Yes, it was the deity/cross issue. Bro. Antonio & I have talked about it further, but have agreed to disagree agreeably.
Bro. Lou, you mention me being able to fellowship with my brothers & sisters in the GES "camp." I am able to do so, though we disagree on some important issues, knowing that they love the same Jesus I do, though they see some things differently than I. I believe, or hope, that everyone that knows me at all here knows what I believe about our Lord Jesus & that He is my everything, as I KNOW He is yours & all that post here. That is all that I am going to say about this. I do not feel a need to keep on debating with my brothers & sisters on this issue, at this point. I am fully persuaded that the Lord is able to convict them & me as well, when we are wrong & need it, & I leave it to Him. Again, bro. Lou, I mean no ill will to you or any brother or sister on this blog. May the Lord bless you.
David:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply, but I was not debating or asking for a debate with you. I was having a dialogue, I thought.
Good to see you recognize and acknowledge the egregious doctrinal error that Antonio posted here yesterday.
Good to read you separated yourself from the cooperative effort with Antonio, Matthew and Rose at Crossless/Deityless blog UoG, over the da Rosa/GES view that the lost can deny the Lord's deity, but still be born again.
No offense taken, none given.Thanks again,
LM
Kev:
ReplyDeleteThis “checklist” mantra from da Rosa is better than the Sunday funny paper.
I sometimes wonder who dreams this stuff up and probably writing it for him.
Lou (aka, Fritz)
Kev:
ReplyDeleteI appreciated the appeal below you posted to Antonio yesterday. It needs reposting again IMO.
Antonio:
You are a preacher of heresy. It breaks my heart to say such a thing. Please, please. Shut off the computer. Take a vacation and just read the Scriptures pouring out your heart to God. Please Antonio. I'm writing to you now, as though God Himself were pleading with you to be reconciled to Him.
This isn't about what you say you preach. Lots of preachers make mistakes... even knowingly say the wrong thing. Some stand up and say the right thing but all the while they counsel people against what they say at the pulpit. You have allowed your voice to be added to this last group.
I want no wrath for you. I need no payment for the sin. I'm desperate for you to please cast off the GES heresy that you have adopted. Stand up for the clear truth of the Scriptures.
Antonio you yourself don't need to be strong enough to do it. Please before Holy God, ask Him to do it for you. I'm so scared for you. I'm terrified for those who come under this evil influence. I shudder for the souls of those who think they are saved because they believed some guy named Jesus for Eternal Life. I trust my faithful God that if they start to receive that He will give them what the need to be saved - I have no choice but to pray that they will continue to seek.
Many gain entertainment from our arguments, and the political games but this is life and death. Antonio,
You are leading people to their destruction.
You are robbing glory from our God.
You are using His Name in vain.
You are despising the Gospel.
You are breaking my heart.
Kev
Dear Dr. Lybrand,
ReplyDeleteI am trying to extradite myself from this controversy, as for the most part, I have come to my own conclusion on the matter. But I have to tell you that what you have allowed to occur here, by patiently waiting for the mudslinging to subside without getting involved has actually allowed some significant discussion to occur. I have been very surprised! So far I am impressed with your stamina, grace and wisdom to allow others to express themselves.
Earlier you answered Gary - rather clearly and completely in my opinion - in regards to whether the GES gospel was heresy. You said, no, you did not consider it so. It seemed to me that by your answer you agree that "belief in Jesus for eternal life" is not false, but incomplete for salvation. Would this be an accurate description of your opinion?
I am not comfortable with those that are stating that this critical aspect of the Gospel (belief in Jesus for eternal life) is "false" or an "anti-biblical error" even a "destroyer of souls." What the GES is espousing is not an extra-biblical belief, but still a crucial (I consider the MOST crucial) part of the Gospel you believe and preach! Right?
This alone has always confused me as to the vitriol that is used in describing the GES Gospel and continually leads me to conclude the behavior must be more personal than doctrinal.
Do you agree with these villifying descriptions used?
May God bless you in your leadership roles as pastor and teacher.
Missy
Hi Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteThat was me you were quoting, not Michele.
Perhaps I was not clear enough, and if so, I apologize. When I said, "the Bible simply doesn't tell us what precisely must be believed to be born again", I meant that the Bible doesn't tell us this information in a nice, neat list and all in one passage, as GES insists. This is simply a fact, as is evidenced by how you determined the content of saving faith. You used 1 Cor. 15 (I do too), but you only included the death and resurrection, not the burial. I don't include the burial either, but my point is that even that "list" includes info that we don't think is required, and it is also missing info that we do think is required (repentance, faith alone, explicit deity reference).
So actually, I think Antonio almost has a really good point for his side, when he says that our side cannot find any passage that names everything that is required belief for the lost to be saved. But it's not really a good point because his side can't find that either.
And that was my point with the statement that you quoted from me - no one can find such a passage, because it simply doesn't exist, nor would we expect it to, given the culture the NT was written in (read the link I provided earlier).
But another point I was making, was that it doesn't matter. It simply isn't necessary to find one single passage that tells us everything that is needed to be believed for salvation. It is very obvious: since our sin is the problem, then we need to acknowledge that sin, repent, and accept Jesus' payment for our sin (death and rez) as sufficient. Jesus' deity is also required, because believing that a human can take away sin is antithetical to the very nature of the lost's need for salvation.
Jimmy, I hope that this has been more clear, and sufficiently answered the questions you posed to me. If not, please let me know and I will endeavor to answer them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi All,
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for this spirited conversation. I'm discovering that a lot of you guys are very frustrated with one another about how you communicate in blogs. Personally, I haven't concluded what the proper thing to do is...right now I'm simply all for free speech. Honestly, some of you made yourselves look bad...mostly to my 21 year old and 18 year old sons. They kind of felt I was being ripped up, but without reasoning or cause. Frankly, it led to good conversation about letting people hold their views; thanks for the parenting opportunity.
I'm going to stop this stream because it is now just too long, though I do think it offers a nice opportunity to read about the debate.
The last words I'd like to share about this conversation on my "Open Letter" is that I really am quite amazed at how much this is affecting everyone, in particular those who have been in the middle (like me).
My plea to everyone is to give those who are wrestling the opportunity to wrestle. Give them some time to think and weigh the passages. Give them a chance without forcing them to decide if they 'agree' with you (or me).
These matters are weighty...but, in time, 1 Corinthians 1:17ff will prevail. Free Gracers are going to see the mistake in the GES Gospel. GES is going to greatly diminish (or it will correct its error and join back with us.
In any event, I want to point out a passage someone mentioned to me over the phone:
"...because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." (Romans 10:9-10, ESV)
I know this is a challenging passage and likely refers (in the overall context) to discipleship / sanctification. However, it is striking that believing in the resurrection for justification is clearly stated in the passage (justification is accepted by virtually everyone as a technical---single meaning---term in the book of Romans; forensic, declared righteous. It may have imputed overtones, but that doesn't help because the resurrection is still required as an object of faith).
My final plea is to come join us in the Free Grace Movement by pitching in with the Free Grace Alliance (www.freegracealliance.com)
Here's the Covenant we affirm as members, but live imperfectly as yet-to-be-perfected saints:
FGA Covenant
As members of the Evangelical Tradition, we affirm the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the inspired Word of God and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. Furthermore, God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory. As members of this tradition, we are concerned about the clear understanding, presentation, and advancement of the Gospel of God’s Free Grace.
We affirm the following:
1. The Grace of God in justification is an unconditional free gift.
2. The sole means of receiving the free gift of eternal life is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose substitutionary death on the cross fully satisfied the requirement for our justification.
3. Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.
4. Justification is the act of God to declare us righteous when we believe in Jesus Christ alone.
5. Assurance of justification is the birthright of every believer from the moment of faith in Jesus Christ, and is founded upon the testimony of God in His written Word.
6. Spiritual growth, which is distinct from justification, is God’s expectation for every believer; this growth, however, is not necessarily manifested uniformly in every believer.
7. The Gospel of Grace should always be presented with such clarity and simplicity that no impression is left that justification requires any step, response, or action in addition to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Covenant:
In agreement with these affirmations, we covenant to work together graciously and enthusiastically to advance this Gospel of Grace, and to communicate with a positive and gracious tone toward all others, both inside and outside the Free Grace Alliance.