PROPOSED TERMS
I propose that the topic being addressed is directed specifically to:
“In the present dispensation, what is the content of saving faith?” and/or
“In the present dispensation, is a belief in Jesus’ divinity, His atoning death, and/or His resurrection necessary for faith in Jesus to constitute saving faith?”
PROPOSED FORMAT
Referring to the opposing sides as #1 and #2, I would propose a general format of:
Affirmative statement no. 1: 15-20 minutes
Affirmative statement no. 2: 15-20 minutes
Cross examination no. 1: 3-5 minutes
Cross examination no. 2: 3-5 minutes
Rehabilitation no. 1: (from cross exam) 5-8 minutes
Rehabilitation no. 2: 5-8 minutes
Summary 1: 5-10 minutes
Summary 2: 5-10 minutes
Arrangements must be made in advance for audio and video recording of the debate.
I am amenable to changing the above format to one which is deemed most appealing to the listening audience, both in terms of structure and time. I will fly to any venue in the United States to conduct this debate.
In the Bonds of Calvary,
Ron Shea
Clear Gospel Campaign
*Below is an image of Ron Shea's open challenge to Bob Wilkin. A copy has been forwarded via e-mail to Bob Wilkin at his GES offices.
To My Guests:
ReplyDeleteEarlier today Bob Wilkin and I exchanged e-mails. In part, I gave Bob advance notice of the Open Challenge coming his way.
Just before posting the Open Challenge from Brother Shea I sent via e-mail a JPEG and MS Word attachment to Bob so that he would be the first know of this challenge to engage him in the debate he (Bob) has been calling for.
Brother Ron Shea is anxious to receive an affirmative response from Bob Wilkin to his (Shea's) Open Challenge.
Yesterday Bob sent me an e-mail indicating a “pastor friend” told him that his call for a debate was going to be answered shortly, which as you can now see has happened. I have suggested to Bob that he post an initial, if not final, reply at his earliest convenience.
IMO a reply should come from Bob personally and not be trickled down to a non-GES staff member for dissemination.
I suggested to Bob that he could reply to Brother Shea’s Open Challenge jointly in this thread, and at his GES site.
I trust Bob is pleased that he is going to get the debate on the Gospel that he has been calling for.
A debate on the GES's "Crossless" Gospel is important to a broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity. Today, therefore, I have posted some details of this debate challenge (with a link to my site) at several very widely viewed Christian internet sites.
Because the GES suddenly shut down their comments thread on the “Crossless” gospel debate, any comments and/or reactions are welcome in this thread from interested parties on both sides of the debate.
LM
Stonewalled! The GES tactic when they are up against the wall.
ReplyDeleteIt is no surprise that GES locked down their website today is it? They were being exposed. Clearly and line upon line their gospel has been totally unconcealed and laid bare for what it really is; a crossless, deityless and false heresy.
I kept telling myself all morning that GES was about to do this but could not believe it when it really happened. It is just too bad that I didn’t wager on it or make a prophecy!
Isn’t it a shocker that the very people that claim to want to have open public debate closed down their web page?
Then to hear that he is not responding to the challenge of Ron Shea to debate the GES new gospel is astounding… You’d think with all the hype that they made out of Rokser and Stegall not being willing to debate they would jump at the chance to publicly defend their novel position.
Let’s see if Shea gets STONEWALLED.
Bret
My frustration with the GES for closing down their site is enormous. Before Lou posted the challenge to Bob W. from Ron Shea to debate the essence of the gospel, we were clearly exposing their false version of the Gospel. In relation to this, I want to encourage all of you, as you follow this most worthy Defense of the Gospel, to remember Peters words concerning truth.
ReplyDelete2 Peter 3:15 …and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort (The GES), as they do also the rest of the Scriptures (The Book of John), to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
Remain steadfast with the Gospel as it was “once for all deliver to the Saints”. Jude 3
Bret Nazworth
Bret/(All):
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "Isn’t it a shocker that the very people that claim to want to have open public debate closed down their web page?"
Frankly, I was surprised they did not shut it down a week ago.
I just spoke to Ron Shea. He is very eager and looking forward to the open, public debate with Bob Wilkin on the "Crossless" gospel.
I am hopeful Bob will not shy away from this opportunity to have the debate he has been pressing for over the summer months.
LM
A MrGiggs on the GES site posed this question which has to do with the deity of Christ.
ReplyDeleteYou asked: Can a person be born again if they don't believe in Jesus' conception by holy spirit / virgin birth?
He may or may not find this. We cannot even redirect the readers of that site here but this was to be my reply.
Are you saying this person does not believe in Jesus conception by the Holy Spirit or are you saying they deny it? If they deny it and by that denial they are saying Christ is not God who died for their sins then they are not saved. 1 John 4:1-3 would confirm this fact. 1 John 5:1 confirms that those who are born of God believe that Jesus is the Christ. “Christ” means deity!
For the doubters: The woman at the well in John 4:25 knew that the Messiah or the Christ would be “all-knowing”. Verse 29 confirms her belief that in the word Christ, Omniscience was implicit. No one is omniscient except God!
Matthew 26:63-68 also shows that the word Christ and Son of God both meant that He was equating Himself with God. If not, why would they have so vehemently accused our Lord Jesus Christ of blasphemy? Don’t even try to disparage the word Christ to mean something less than deity.
Those of you, who are crossless and deityless proponents, believe that the word “Christ” does not imply deity. Therefore you say it’s preferred to present a dumbed-down Jesus concept to people. You all actually believe that we are adding to the gospel to say that Jesus Christ is God, when we preach. Or, you may concede and say well, (talking about Diane, Jo and Alvin, Bill Fiess, and the other Mike etc. at GES) it’s okay but why muddy the waters with frivolous facts about who Jesus is.
Am I wrong?
BNaz
Lou, have you ever noticed these other flaws in the GES crossless gospel?
ReplyDelete- GES salvation message shows total dispensational ignorance when it makes statements like “the disciples were not saved by believing in the Cross and Resurrection so we should not preach that nowadays.”. This is dispensational ignorance!
- Who would argue that the disciples were saved by believing in the cross and resurrection? They were saved before the cross and resurrection. Same with the woman at the well, etc.! But all that said, every one of them believed it and preached it that way afterward. That was the NEWS that they were to take to the world!
- They (GES) actually believe that if the Gospel contained the death and resurrection (which it does) that God would have reengineer that into the history of the way things happened in the gospels.
- Who would believe John’s gospel if he had added in information before it actually happened? No, the cross and resurrection were not explicitly in the gospels before they actually happened. They were there, nonetheless in verses like John 2:19; John 3:14, John 11:25-26, etc.
- How does GES believe that people were saved in the OT? They obviously did not have John 3:16, 6:47 11:25-26 (GES’s favorite verses) yet they somehow got saved. They didn’t have the GES mantra and yet they were saved. Well, I propose to GES that the disciples were saved in the very same way that OT saints were saved.
- FYI Crossless pundits don’t believe that the gospels (John included) were historical accounts of people still under a different dispensation. They were saved in looking to (by faith alone in) the Promised One for Salvation.
- Within this dispensation, through the writings of the NT, the Gospel acquired a definable, technical meaning. 1 Cor 15:3-4 contains those core ingredients.
Bret
Lou I couldn’t agree more:
ReplyDeleteYou said: “I just spoke to Ron Shea. He is very eager and looking forward to the open, public debate with Bob Wilkin on the "Crossless" gospel.
I am hopeful Bob will not shy away from this opportunity to have the debate he has been pressing for over the summer months.”
After, besmirching the “Dulutian Antagonist” via the ”Voice of the GES, A da R for hiding behind their pens and keyboards you’d think that GES would welcome the bid to debate by Mr. Ron Shea.
Mr. Shea seems to be very well qualified, as he wrote a wonderful summary of the Gospel message many years ago entitled “The Gospel” found on his website:
http://cleargospel.org/booklet.php?b_id=3 All crossless proponents would do well to read that interactive booklet to understand the truth of the Gospel more clearly.
Bret
You wrote, “After, besmirching the ‘Dulutian Antagonist’ via the ”Voice of the GES, A da R for hiding behind their pens and keyboards you’d think that GES would welcome the bid to debate by Mr. Ron Shea.
ReplyDeleteMr. Shea seems to be very well qualified, as he wrote a wonderful summary of the Gospel message many years ago entitled “The Gospel” found on his website…”
Bret:
When I first read Shea’s bio, which I link to, I was not only impressed with his credentials, but after reading his background and experience, I thought most men might be hesitant to debate Shea. He is not just “very well qualified,” he is supremely qualified.
Wilkin has indicated that he (Bob) wants to debate the most qualified person he can. IMO, Shea more than meets Bob’s “qualified person” criteria.
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteYou could not be more right about that. I’d think that GES would welcome someone who has his credentials to sit across the aisle on a discussion of this magnitude.
Bret