Here is the passage that convinced me to change from supporting Zane and Bob. I have yet to have anyone argue against the point...especially in any printed form. The whole passage goes further, but this should be enough for the discussion.
It is undeniable that Paul saw the cross as in the message by which we are saved. Look at this:
"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles," (1 Corinthians 1:21-23, ESV)
If I put these together for precision it reads like this:
"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach (Christ Crucified)(v.23) to save those who believe.
What do you think? I think the cross is an unavoidable part of THE MESSAGE. This is especially why a gospel that doesn't include the cross is not a gospel that will save eternally.
Grace,
FRL
Hey Dr Fred. I could not agree with you more. This was the pivotal passage for me when I was exposed to and honestly considered GES' gospel. This passage debunks the GES claim that they include such info because it's psychologically helpful or persuasive. That certainly isn't how Paul saw it. According to GES' reasoning, Paul was confused or needlesly confusing to present this info when he knew full well that it was a stumbling block. Like you, I haven't seen a serious reply to this objection.
ReplyDeleteBlessings to you, g'night
Thanks Stephen,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I've heard any of those guys say that Paul was confused...mostly they claim his view was completely consistent with John 6:47 (there view of the gospel is solely in this verse; but only in the KJV and NKJV). In other words, whenever Paul 'seems' to contradict, it is our misunderstanding.
There really isn't a way to get around this and stay true to the text. The answer will have to change what Paul is up to (in my opinion).
Grace,
FRL
Good morning Fred. I wrote my previous comment from my phone so it wasn't as verbose/clear as I would liked it to have been. I appreciate what you pointed out in saying "I'm not sure I've heard any of those guys say that Paul was confused" so allow me to clear up what I incompletely stated earlier.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you are of course correct; no one in GES that I'm aware of has or would even consider stating that Paul was confused/confusing. However, if you look in the previous thread and elsewhere over the years, GES and her advocates have repeatedly stated in various terms that the Classic Free Grace Gospel is "confused", "confusing", "wrong", "in error", or some other term expressing it's "flawed" in some way. The point I didn't make clear earlier is that, To be consistent, they would have to also reason that Paul was [insert flaw] as well because he unapologetically preached a known stumbling block -- That "It is a fact that [Paul] may have turned such a one away from eternal life" in doing so. But, Of course, they don't... which reveals a glaring inconsistency at best and blatant intellectual dishonesty at worst. I'm not the judge of which, but the result is that they are inconsistent regardless of how they got there.
I hope that clears it up... It would've given me serious thumb cramp to have punched out all of that on my phone. ;-) I attempted to be brief at the risk of some clarity. Doh.
Likewise, you mention a couple of times in your article that the cross is in "the message". Frankly, I don't think GES advocates would have a problem with that because they insist (almost but not quite universally) that they "always" include the cross in "the message" as well. I think I know what you mean, the obvious meaning, but in my experience GES' advocates like to latch on to this kind of thing, claim they've been misrepresented, and then use that as a smoke screen to avoid answering the meatier objections against their view. I would ask then, when discussing the GES gospel at least, that you/we/whoever endeavor to articulate a clear distinction between "the message preached" vs 'what needs to be believed". I believe you stated elsewhere, in a quote I can't find, something to the effect of "we all present more in our message than that which is strictly required to be believed"... I agree... and that's the distinction I'm calling for here.
I'm continuing to pray for you Fred and I appreciate your transparency and willingness to discuss the FGA and GES' gospel publicly.
BTW, If you ever get a substantial reply regarding how GES+advocates resolve the tension of 1 Cor 1:17ff I'd be very interested in your review of it, and to review it myself.
Blessings.
What do you think? I think the cross is an unavoidable part of THE MESSAGE. This is especially why a gospel that doesn't include the cross is not a gospel that will save eternally.
ReplyDeleteI think that is more than abundantly obvious, especially since only a few verses later in 1 Cor 2:2 Paul tells us that he determined to know nothing among them except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Then, to say it one more time, he gives us the famous passage in chapter 15. So he begins and ends the letter with the same information on what the gospel is, with instruction at both ends on why this is necessary. He tells us in the beginning of the letter that the message of the cross is the means of salvation that is foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews, but the power of God unto salvation for those who believe. He tells us at the end that the resurrection is proof that the cross was not in vain and our faith in the cross is not in vain.
The burden of proof that the cross is NOT the message that saves, but only facilitates belief in the message of eternal life given by Jesus Christ (which, apparently, they believe is the message that saves) is definitely on the GES. And I have not found any of their arguments persuasive in the least.
JanH
This is a good question. Too bad it is surrounded by so much discord that has robbed us of a very beneficial discussion. So many have been turned off to even considering the questions anymore because of the not only unecessary, but sinful discord and calls for rejection of brethren.
ReplyDeleteEveryone in this debate believes in Jesus and his works, and the discussion was initially about what exactly it is about that Gospel (story of Jesus) that saves the hearer. It sounds like a healthy meditation. It's a shame how some made it to be into an issue of separation. (Proverbs 6 has something to say about those.) It seems to me that everyone is in full agreement on the content of the Gospel message. This whole dispute should never have been anything more than a debate over soteriology.
We find it inexpressibly sad.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteI think that you make an excellent point here. There is no way that one can deny the centrality of the cross in the gospel preached by the Apostle Paul.
I am relatively new to the Free Grace Movement, not having fully understood how far reformed theology has moved away from salvation by grace through faith. I always believed in free grace but I never had thought through the implications of lordship salvation and other extreme reformed understandings of salvation until recently. That being said I really do appreciate your commitment to not watering down the Gospel but in sticking to the content of the Gospel while keeping it simple at the same time.
A question that I have is if the GES folks (or anyone for that matter) have considered the content from John's epistles as helping us to understand John's take on the content of the gospel.
1 John 1:7 "...the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from every sin." (NLT) This verse at the least implies the work of the cross and the necessity of the shed blood for forgiveness of sin to be possible.
1 John 2:2 "He (Jesus Christ) is the sacrifice for our sins..." Again the use of 'sacrifice' implies the cross.
If we let John interpret for himself his understanding of the gospel message I think there is sufficient evidence that the work of the cross is part of the gospel he preached.
Greets Pete and David. This isn't my blog but, as someone who as been active in the debate/discussion for 2+ years now as a direct result of it attempting to penetrate my church, I just wanted to welcome you to it personally. Fred is very gracious and bold to address this matter publicly and I commend him for it, again.
ReplyDeleteDavid said: "If we let John interpret for himself his understanding of the gospel message I think there is sufficient evidence that the work of the cross is part of the gospel he preached."
As I expressed to Fred earlier, and to be clear, GES advocates would have no problem agreeing with that. The difference is between "the gospel preached" vs "the gospel believed". GES' current position is that the crosswork "should 'always' be preached" but that it can in fact even be consciously rejected and yet still result in everlasting life.
Only a minority have taken this to the logical conclusion -- that the crosswork can be thus left out entirely -- but Fred has rightly concluded elsewhere that eventually the logical tension in their view-vs-practice will resolve and leaving out the crosswork will become more widespread. There is no way to avoid that this is the logical conclusion of their view-in-practice, as evidenced here, no matter how much the GES majority protest about such an outcome now.
Perhaps I don't need to make this distinction for you but since you stated you are a relative newcomer I thought I'd offer some clarification for you and any others in case it's helpful. To be clear, the GES gospel "preaches" (and I'm using the term loosely) very much the same message as Classic Free Grace, but when the rubber hits the road the most prominent proponents of GES' gospel, such as Antonio, allow the hearer to even consciously reject virtually all of the message except the part about the promise of everlasting life, regardless of who the hearer has concluded this Jesus fella actually is -- consciously holding that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer is A-OK for example.
Not trying to rile anyone up, just giving some background to bring you or others up to speed quickly. Fred's open letter is a good read as well if you haven't read it already.
Again, welcome, I hope to you see both around some more.
Stephen,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “GES' current position is that the crosswork should 'always' be preached.”
That is very true. I’ve heard several individuals in GES make this same claim. Often they go on to explain that the reason the cross should be preached is because it is helpful for the unbeliever to understand that Jesus is trustworthy. After all, if someone would die for you then, would not that person be worthy of your trust?!
That sounds logical on the surface. But what if the cross is a stumbling block or an offence to the one hearing the message? Logic would demand that in such a situation you should skip the message of the cross since it is not a vital part of the message that must be believed. Or at least according to GES, it is not a vital part of the message which must be believed in order to be saved.
For example, since the message of the cross is a stumbling block to Muslims, then may it could (or should) be left out of a gospel presentation to those of the Islamic religion.
Expediency, logic or pragmatism will dictate what is included or left out of the gospel message. GES advocates claim that they will always present the work of the cross. But if it is not a vital part of the message that must be believed, then situations will arise in which logic will dictate that it would be best to skip that part of the gospel presentation.
A missionary friend of mine works in a remote area of Southeast Asia. They have spent considerable time learning the language and culture of the people in order to present the gospel to them in their mother tongue. They are using a chronological method of presenting the gospel which culminates with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. A traveling evangelist came through their region and told the tribal people the Christmas story. That was his sole presentation of “the gospel.” When my friend asked him why he did not include the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, the evangelist replied that he didn’t have time to go into all those details, because there were so many other people who needed to hear the gospel. Expediency determined the contents of his so called gospel message.
It may be true that those in the leadership of GES ALWAYS include the message of the cross in their presentation of the gospel. But what about their disciples? If the cross is not an essential element to be believed, then GES disciples following logic to its logical end will no doubt find that certain situations will demand that they leave out the cross for the sake of expediency or pragmatism. Personally, I’m more concerned about the disciples of GES and how they will tailor the GES gospel to meet the needs of the situations they find themselves in.
Bob
Stephen,
ReplyDeleteThanks for both your thoughts and preserving your thumbs. I get your point about the confusion.
The mess occurs when we divide 'message preached' from 'message believe'--- a very difficult thing to do without thinking oneself into a cul-de-sac.
I think things went awry when we accepted the idea of a 'minimal' gospel. There is no such thing...we can't be saved with less than the gospel; and that which saves us is the gospel. We can tell a lot more...but that isn't the gospel.
Odd that we have to educate ourselves to admit such plain things.
Grace,
FRL
Jan,
ReplyDeleteI think what you are saying is nicely put. I do confess that I did (formerly) find their arguments persuasive...but it was because I was following a logic trail and not scriptural one.
I know this can sound offensive; but I would say the same to my Calvinistic friends who believe in limited atonement (particular redemption...so called). The logic of their view actually can 'make sense'---but the text doesn't support it all since Jesus died for the whole world.
The 'logic' of anything can work...but, bad premise, bad conclusion.
Grace,
FRL
David,
ReplyDeleteThanks for pitching in...and I agree that John has a lot of info for us in his letters (and his gospel). We oddly tend to cherrypick the word on occasion...seeing what we wish.
The GES Gospel folks will insist that they believe in the cross as to what it accomplished...it just isn't important (yea, it is unnecessary) concerning what one need believe to be eternally delivered.
There is a wiggly bit of convoluted sophistication (or sophistry) involved in the argument. It won't matter, God has given us many geniuses who can only see the simply things...they are the ones who keep us on track!
Grace to you,
FRL
Bob,
ReplyDeleteYou hit the nail with your head (Dr. Hendricks used to say). Expediency might be right...sometimes it is simplicity. I used to have debates with friends who believed there is no sin nature, largely because it made the issue easier to understand, and simpler to apply.
It doesn't matter, however, since we still have a sin nature...as the word says.
We'll make that another debate sometime; especially if you have a different view!
My point is that partly they see there view as simply more simply and clear to understand and believe...however, simple doesn't make right.
No faith in the cross is to cross off one's faith...or something like that; don't you think?
Grace,
FRL
Fred: ...but it was because I was following a logic trail and not scriptural one.And wouldn't it be nice if God was always logical from our view point? I think He is always logical, but has not necessarily shared with us the data we need to follow His logic. Satan knows this, of course, and consequently spends all his time asking, "Yea, hath God said...?"
ReplyDeleteJanH
Bob: That sounds logical on the surface. But what if the cross is a stumbling block or an offence to the one hearing the message? Logic would demand that in such a situation you should skip the message of the cross since it is not a vital part of the message that must be believed.
ReplyDeleteDon't we all face this at some point when witnessing? I know I face it all the time. I know that as soon as I get to the part about man being under God's wrath and needing a Savior that I have hit the end of what they are going to hear. And overwhelmingly that is exactly the case. For the time being we don't live in a society of people that might kill us for saying something they don't like (such as Christ crucified for their salvation). Even so, the temptation is ever present to some how leave the cross out, or fudge the truth in some way so as to "help" them be more accepting since we want them to believe it so badly. But what we get instead is the rejection Christ got. Instead of a new bonding in relationship, there is often a new breach. Or, if they are good about it, the same eternal breach is brought to the forefront. Perhaps they don't feel it, but I do. And it can be very painful and troubling. At least, this is my experience.
I think maybe that is why Paul was with the Corinthians in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. Because he determined to know nothing among them except Jesus Christ and Him crucified, which put him in a very precarious place due to the offensiveness of the message. He certainly could have preached something far more palatable. But because the cross is the power of God and the wisdom of God, that is what he preached. It took great faith and commitment for him to do this, I think.
It reminds me of Proverbs 3:5.
JanH
Hello Dr Lybramd and guests. I would have posted this in the 'other' thread except it's closed. At any rate, I'd just like to make everyone aware that Don Reiher has 'responded' to Fred's open letter. I created a topic for it on the Theotalk forum and welcome anyone to participate.
ReplyDeletehttp://theotalk.knetdome.net/discuss/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16
thank you
Hello Fellow Free Gracers,
ReplyDeleteThis is my 1st post in all this discussion. A little about me so I don't cause a bit of misunderstanding... I'm Dyslexic and learned whole language aka sight reading and maybe some other learning disabilities that get the way of my word skills and word order. However, i Might add I do have concepts in my head... I just can't verbalize it always. I am 44 male from NC been saved since 1994.
My question is what if a person did not 'know' if he believed Jesus died on a cross or not. Yet made a choice and trusted JESUS at His word.(with out knowing 'all' of the answers let alone all of the questions... Would could that person be 'saved'. I 'll leave it at that. And can further explan if needed. Thanks
Bill
Free Grace, your question sounds familiar. I remember being asked before by a skeptic, "What about those that never heard especially those in a tribe in the Amazon? If what they see in nature causes them to believe that there is a god of the universe and trusts Him with their limited knowledge then wouldn't they be saved?" I hope that you would answer "no" because apart from the name of Jesus, there is NO salvation.
ReplyDeleteFred argued that Paul preached Christ crucified and can a message without the cross be considered the gospel. I would like it if you answer his final question first because what he said already answered your question. Fred was saying that without the preaching of the cross then there is no gospel. You asked if a person can believe without hearing or knowing the cross and his post here already answered that above.
Don't worry about Dyslexia and being misunderstood. I don't even have Dyslexia and I always cause confusion.
Good point, Dave.
ReplyDeleteI’m a missionary with an organization that specializes in reaching tribal people with the gospel, including the Amazon. We use a chronological approach to presenting the gospel. We lay a foundation by beginning with selected stories from the O.T. to demonstrate who God is and man’s helplessness before this Holy God. The culmination of this chronological approach is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
Interesting enough, about the same time that we were developing this approach, Charles Clough was developing “Framework” which is a similar concept of presenting the gospel to educated (literate) people here in North America.
In this day of “instant everything” there is a temptation to short-circuit the gospel message. As you and Fred have pointed out, the gospel is not the gospel without the presentation of Christ’s death on the cross.
I would highly recommend the following for those interested in this chronological approach to presenting the gospel:
http://www.ntmbooks.com/?categoryid=3
http://www.goodseed.com/
http://www.cclough.com/about-framework.php
Bob
Charlie's a good guy!
ReplyDelete