September 23, 2007

Repentance: Poll & Defining

To All:

As a reminder, Greg Schliesmann’s The “Christ” Under Siege, Part 2 will be posted by the end of this week.

In the meantime, I am opening a poll question. There are multiple answers to choose from. This is your your chance to participate in an informal, anonymous poll on the definition of biblical repentance. There are three choices. Please choose the one that best describes your personal position on repentance. (I believe the poll feature allows for anonymous voting, but I am not sure.)

On Tuesday morning I am going to post an article to share some thoughts and comments on the overall debate over the Gospel as well as the doctrine of repentance within the broader discussion. I will comment along the lines of the extremes in the debate, plus my desire and effort to define what might be the balanced position on repentance that many (not all) would be comfortable with.

It might interest you to know that I am going to open the comment thread for anonymous interaction of the doctrine of repentance. I am, however, going to give one specific instruction for posting in that thread as an anonymous guest.

Check back again for the new article and comment thread.


GES blog moderator is blocking questions on repentance to Bob Wilkin! On Sunday morning I posted two questions on repentance to Bob Wilkin at his GES blog. To view the two questions I posted to Wilkin, and some comments, open the comment thread below.


  1. This morning I posted two questions on repentance to Bob Wilkin at his GES blog. As of 14 hours later my questions have not cleared the GES moderator. They are being blocked so that Wilkin does not have to acknowledge or respond to them. They are being blocked so that readers cannot see that Wilkin is dodging questions, which has been his pattern on issues such as the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    This reiterates Wilkins's determination to avoid and dodge any legitimate doctrinal questions about his interpretation of the Gospel. Ironically, Wilkin did post two replies at his blog, but when a tough question came from one individual, Wilkin ceased responding to him.

    That said, the last time the report of their blocking comments and questions the GES administrator suddenly posted the blocked comment.

    Now that I have publicized their censorship by omission, maybe they will feel the need to allow my questions.


  2. Following is what I posted to Wilkin at his GES blog.


    For clarification sake:

    1) You at one time believed and wrote that repentance is involved in salvation, i.e., the conversion experience.

    Have you changed your position in favor of Hodges' long held belief that repentance is NOT a condition of salvation?

    2) Most men in the FG community think of repentance in terms of it being a “change of mind.”

    Do you count yourself among those who hold that position on repentance?


  3. This morning a new commet to Bob appeared at the GES blog under his article on repentance.

    24 hours have elapsed that the GES blog has blocked my two questions from appearing.

    It is now beyond any doubt that the GES is unwilling to disucss their doctrinal position on the Gospel.

    This morning I took the liberty of sending, via e-mail, to Bob Wilkin my two questions above. This way there is no possibilty that Wilkin is unaware of these questions.


  4. 1) Lou wrote: "Most men in the FG community think of repentance in terms of it being a “change of mind."

    Can you provide a pithy explanation of "change of mind" as it relates to the view of "most men in the FG community"?

    I am currently neither FG or LS as the details of the debate between the positions are new to me. From what I understand of the positions I align with classic FG. I can plainly say however that I do NOT align with GES' model of FG. That said, "change of mind" is a bit vague for me because it doesn't readily identify what it is that one must change their mind about; Jesus, sin, both, or something else? I'm sure the object is plain to established FGers like you but it's ambiguous to someone like me who is new to the issue and is simply trying to understand it.

    2) Are you referring to webquests implied question?

    webquest wrote:
    "The way that reads is that we have to both repent and believe for eternal life.

    Im assuming you dont mean it that way..."

    I thought that a good question in light of Bob's previous post and statement of "If God tells us to proclaim both messages, then we should." and I have been checking regularly for BW's reply.

  5. Hi Knet:

    Thanks for stopping by.

    I am working on getting a new article up, but...

    Yes, I was referring to Webquest's question. This is a repeat of last week’s fiasco at the GES blog where they deleted Wilkins’s articles and the discussion threads. It appears Wilkin may dodge Webquest’s question.

    I thought it ironic that after Wilkin deleted all the previous articles on the GES interpretation of the Gospel, and was widely criticized for it, he decided to interact on his repentance article. They do, however, have the comment/question blocker set up, and are using it to control the discussion and evade questions on repentance.

    This shows they have no intention of allowing an honest discussion of the issues.

    What Wilkin and Myers do with the GES is blog is not a major issue. They think by deleting all traces of their position from their blog they will be able to distract attention away from their “Crossless” and “Deityless” interpretation of the Gospel.

    More to you in a few...


  6. Lou,
    Can you please explain your obsession with this GES (and what does that stand for)? You seem like a man who is lost in his obsession to be heard by a man who clearly wants nothing to do with you. Are you trying to pick a fight or something? I've rarely seen blogs who spend more time promoting another organization through negative attacks than they do their own. I guess is a sight like yours, but I didn't think Christians were supposed to act like this. Can you respond to this question?

  7. Flavio:

    I appreciate your concern.

    The issue is about the nature of the Gospel. Would you agree that this is major doctrine and any assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ must be addressed?

    I am not the first to deal with the strange teaching coming from the (GES) Grace Evangelical Society, and I won’t be the last. Because of my work on the Lordship Salvation view of the Gospel I was asked by some concerned folks to take a look at what is known as the “Crossless” gospel. In short order I found that without any doubt it is a departure from the faith once delivered (Jude 3).

    My greatest concern is for the lost and unsuspecting believers that they are not deceived into believing this is the biblical plan of salvation. It is not! It is a reductionist message that resembles almost nothing of the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    What happens in discussion like these, when personalities are involved, some tend to look at them as though they are personal in nature and I assure that this is not the case with me.

    May I ask: Does it strike you at all odd that Bob Wilkin would delete the articles and discussion of the GES's position? Why would men who believe they have the truth on the Gospel seek to hide what they believe and refuse to discuss their position?

    I understand they have no intention of discussing this with me or any one else who objects to their position. The problem is that Wilkin, Hodges and the GES are determined to continue the spread of this false teaching. IMO, believers across a wide spectrum of evangelical Christianity need to be warned about what this teaching is, so that they can recognize it, and be aware of who is promoting it.

    Finally, I would like share some biblical injunctions that address the concern you raised: Titus 1:9; 2 Tim. 4:2; Jude 3; Rom 16:17-18.

    I’m glad you voiced your concern. From this point, however, I’d encourage you to focus your comments and concerns on the doctrinal issues.



  8. Forgive me for not understanding completely. If Bob Wilkin thinks he has interpreted the Bible correctly and you think you have interpreted the Bible correctly and neither of you agree, how do you know which of you is right? Obviously, you think you are in the right, but why. Don't you both use scripture to support your views?

  9. Flavio:

    Yes, we both believe the Bible must be the final authority for faith/doctrine and practice. Here is the difference-

    Hodges, Wilkin and Myers view the Gospel of John with such single-mindedness that for them it trumps and negates the rest of the New Testament where it touches on salvation. That is why they have to twist out of shape the clear meaning of passages like 1 Cor. 15:3-4 and Romans 10:9-10.

    Actually, Greg Schliesmann has a better handle on this part of the issue than I do. Maybe he will add a few notes.

    First year preacher boys are taught to interpret and define Scripture with Scripture. Hodges and Wilkin, however, force into or wrench out of parallel passages whatever they must to bolster their Crossless and Deityless interpretation of the Gospel.

    Let me ask you to ponder the following: Those men believe His titles, “Christ” and “Son of God” do not mean or imply His Deity. I don’t know where you fall on the Gospel, but I would hope you find that kind of dumbing-down of the Lord’s titles offensive.