January 31, 2008

Grace Evangelical Society Dismisses Jeremy Myers

Dear Guests:

UPDATE: At the de-Conversion blog Jeremy is publicly commenting on his termination from the GES. See his comments on January 30. For example he writes,

So they didn’t fire me because I stopped believing some of their core doctrines, but becuase I wanted to study views that were contrary to those doctrines. I was told that studying such views brings major discredit to the ministry. Personally, I thought it was a way to help the ministry…
Because of the high number of hits on this article I re-dated it to appear at the head of my home page. Please view my two latest comments, posted 1/31 @ 9:30 & 9:41am in the thread below. The 9:41am comment I partially directed to Jeremy’s attention. Following is the original posting of this article.


While I was away on a recent vacation I was notified by telephone that a comment was posted at my blog that lead to a series of comments at the de-Conversion blog. Upon my return I read the note posted by Roopster in the thread under my article, Is There Genuine Concern for “The Heretic in Me?” (See 1/26 @ 10:13am).

I followed the link to the de-Conversion blog, which Jeremy has been frequenting in recent weeks. There I found
Jeremy confirming he had been fired by the Grace Evangelical Society (GES). Jeremy wrote,
I’m not sure who Khristian is, or how he/she found out I got fired… but word was bound to get out eventually.”
This morning (Jan. 31, 2008) I visited the GES web site and found no announcement of Jeremy’s dismissal. Furthermore, I noted that Jeremy is still slated as a speaker at the 2008 GES national conference.  Jeremy’s biography appeared at the GES website, (but was subsequently removed). 

Assuming Jeremy’s dismissal is actual and genuine GES site corrections are sure to follow. Furthermore, I suggest Bob Wilkin verify Jeremy’s dismissal from the GES site his earliest convenience. The GES is a fairly high-profile ministry.
It is not fair to Jeremy and his family to have individuals at the de-Conversion blog announcing Jeremy’s termination when, in my opinion, that should have come from his former employer Bob Wilkin.*

I posted
Is There Genuine Concern… shortly after Myers published The Heretic in Me at his personal blog. In that article Jeremy was the first to publicly announce he had been having “misgivings” and reconsidering his long held beliefs on various doctrinal issues. He expressed having “misgivings” on Bible doctrines such as the literal, six-day-24-hour creation, a future seven-year Tribulation and an eternal, conscious torment in Hell.

Jeremy was not simply asking questions about these doctrines, he was questioning these doctrines. Questioning the reliability and accuracy of the biblical account on Creation, the Tribulation and Hell indicates to me that Jeremy had begun to have
doubts about the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible on these subjects.

It is widely known that the teachings of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin introduced what has come to be known as the “
Crossless” gospel. This is a reductionist, non-saving message that has brought “division” and “offences” (Romans 16:17) into a number of Bible-believing churches and ministries.

Once the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been corrupted and undermined more doctrinal foundations are sure to crumble. We have a sad and stark example of this in the life and ministry of Jeremy Myers. Jeremy came under
the corrupting influence of the Zane Hodges “Crossless” gospel, which lead to his slide into more error.

The tragic fall of Jeremy Myers renews
my hope and prayer that the Grace Evangelical Society will one day cease to exist. The GES has long since departed from a balanced biblical view on the Gospel, i.e. the necessary content of saving faith. The unscriptural “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel has rendered Wilkin, Hodges and the GES irrelevant, and in fact a detriment to any defense of the Gospel against Lordship Salvation.

There is no way a Bible-believing Christian, who understands what the GES has become, and the damage (the late) Zane Hodges and Wilkin have done to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, can support the GES with his/her prayers or finances. As long as the GES has any influence in Christian circles the possibility exists there will be more men and women who will come under the corrupting influence of the “
Crossless” gospel.

Jeremy Myers is
a casualty and genuine tragedy of the “Crossless” gospel.


LM

*(I have e-mailed Brother Wilkin encouraging him to break this news himself to quell any rumor-mongering that is sure to follow. Wilkin never did reply, but all biographical information of Jeremy was removed from the GES site and he did not appear the the 2008 GES national conference.)

51 comments:

  1. There is no way to express my broken heart for Jeremy without sounding melodramatic... I've never met the man face to face. I've spent a great deal of time arguing against him. But the truth is that these things HURT. Now a hurt that would normally be fairly private is out for all on the Net to check out and weigh in on.

    Jeremy, I am sorry for the offense and pain all of this will likely cause you. You have to know that I wish you no hurt, and that the Good Shepard would work mightily in your life.

    He is able to do so! In fact He promises all things work together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purposes. So take heart, and get into the Scriptures. Oh how I hope you will RUN away from the influences that have cost you so much.

    In love,
    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Antonio:

    I'll leave your post up for now as a testament to the reason why you have been banned at my blog and others.

    You don't even have the character or integrity to respect your having been banned.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  5. The comment I removed was from an anonymous person and it was total non-sense.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  6. While at one level Jeremy’s dismissal brings sorrow, we need to celebrate that it has taken place. Congregations should not give an inch of ground when a pastor or spiritual leader diverts from at one point from the faith. A literal six day twenty-four creation is a non-negotiable. Questioning the existence of eternal punishment and the sufficiency of Christ’s death are non-negotiable. Let’s not mince words that the questioning the inerrancy or the infallibility of Scripture, even with one verse, is not an act of faith. Doubting the Word and the teachings of the church are dangerous practices that have appropriately brought about the young man’s dismissal.

    Through repentance and God’s grace Mr. Myers can be welcomed back into the fold of faith. Only after a very long time and extensive examination could he ever be allowed to be in a leadership position.

    Allowing them to resign is not appropriate as it helps them into other positions where they can lead the gullible and vulnerable astray. Firing helps to bare him from bringing harm. Firing him sends a strong signal to others not to question and doubt the long held teachings faithfully handed down to us by our godly forefathers. Hopefully others who have thought of this young man’s practice will be given pause and fall upon their knees in repentance.

    Lou, thank you for your work to expose apostasy. Thank you for helping to keep the bride of Christ pure. Keep working to expose other pastors and spiritual leaders who are unfit to be in the pulpit and lead the faithful.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Joe:

    I appreciate your comments above.

    FYI, I am not necessarily looking for pastors or spiritual leaders who may be unfit for ministry. My experience shows me that men who have gone into error eventually expose their error without any outside help. Jeremy did exactly that.

    Antonio da Rosa is also exposing more and more of his egregious views of the Gospel and the Lord's deity. I can’t remember a time when I read a professing believer suggest, as Antonio insists, the Mormon Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospels are “one and he same.” If da Rosa were on staff at a Bible-believing ministry, that statement would result in his dismissal.

    About two weeks ago I was telling a pastor that Jeremy did not all of a sudden lean toward heresy overnight. Some time ago he opened the door to divergent beliefs. It welled up and got a grip on him over a period of time.

    His recent string of articles revealed it to the point that even the GES had to take note and act. It was as if Jeremy was venting a pent up frustration with what appears to have been a personal theological facade.

    In any event, his new direction does in fact make him unfit for any type of spiritual leadership, just as you noted.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  8. Without permission Antonio da Rosa posted a comment in this thread. After leaving it up for a few hours I finally pulled it.

    da Rosa was banned from my blog last year, for his unrestrained combativeness, vitriol, and very poor behavior choices.

    He is widely known for these things and has been banned and/or reprimanded for his behavior at various blogs.

    da Rosa's unwelcome appearance here demonstrated what sort of attitude and behavior he is universally recognized for.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  9. To All:

    I must temporarily enable comment moderation.

    Sorry, for the inconvenience, but Antonio da Rosa's latest misbehavior necessitates this action for the moment.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  10. Joe, I agree with you in part but find a couple of your comments difficult to accept as written. Maybe you didn't mean them as I've taken them but I feel obligated to comment in at least the interest of clarity.

    Joe: Doubting the Word and the teachings of the church are dangerous practices that have appropriately brought about the young man’s dismissal.

    Joe: Firing him sends a strong signal to others not to question and doubt the long held teachings faithfully handed down to us by our godly forefathers.

    Joe, I wholeheartedly agree that it is egregious to doubt the authority of the Word. However, I do not share your apparent view that it is equally dangerous to question the teachings handed down by our forefathers. Consider Martin Luther: it is good that he penned his 95 theses and openly (and rightly) questioned many of the "handed down" doctrines of the day. ML wasn't 100% correct either and his views that have been "handed down" are not above question either.

    Consider the free grace movement itself: it is good that men like Charles Ryrie questioned the Lordship views that were, and still are, being handed down. Don't you think that those in LS environments should question what they've been handed down?

    So, I agree somewhat in spirit with your particular comments but not in the word of them -- No teaching is sacred just because it was handed down by supposedly godly forefathers. Traditional views can be important in connecting us to the past, and one shouldn't break with them lightly because they were often established to keep a previous generation in touch with a core doctrine or to protect it from a corrupting influence that was prevalent at the time. However, they are not unquestionable so long as such doubts are asked and reconciled with due and honest diligence. Other traditional views are, well, just traditional and may have no substance when tested.

    My comments are not specifically direct at Jeremy's situation because I don't know his heart and, from what little I know, Jeremy did not question the authority of the word, but "only" whether or not what he had been traditionally taught about them was actually correct. Yes, that is a path that should not be traveled lightly or by the ill-prepared, but to say it shouldn't be traveled at all seems demonstrably incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Joe:

    You wrote, "Doubting the Word and the teachings of the church..."

    I gave benefit of the doubt on that.

    Having grown up in the Roman Catholic Church I did wince just a little when I read your note about the "teachings of the Church."

    Our notes can become very long if we try to define and explain every nuance of our general comments in these threads. Of course, one must be careful that he does not portray himself as possibly holding to some error, if in fact does not.

    The Bible, God's Word, must be our final authority for faith and practice. Would you agree with that?


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  12. Stephen:

    You wrote, "Don't you think that those in LS environments should question what they've been handed down"?

    You are correct in this.

    In my on-going debates with LS advocates, I encountered many who accepted LS because of the personalities associated with the position.

    There is a man I have been discussing LS with in the last few weeks who will not even consider LS is wrong because he trusts John MacArthur and will not accept that MacArthur could be wrong. He has not even read any of JM's books on LS, but insists MacArthur's LS interpretation is correct.

    We are seeing the same sort of thing with some of the advocates of the "Crossless" gospel when it comes to Zane Hodges.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  13. Lou, your assessment is absolutely correct concerning personality infatuation when people are led astray.

    John F. MacArthur, Jr. is charismatic with a great sounding voice, and gifted in his speaking skills. He's also very subtle when speaking, at least on the radio. Though it has been some years since I've heard him, I don't recall hearing any hard lordship messages from him. Perhaps that is by his design in order to appear orthodox concerning the Gospel.

    More people after all, are going to hear him on the radio and in person than read his books. Once they are hooked on him, the more radical teachings in his books just run off of them like water on a duck's back. They are able to rationalize his heresies as exaggerations born out of his enthusiasm and zealousness, and so they forgive him and keep drooling for more. Or they wholeheartedly embrace his lordship teachings. Perhaps not all at once, but like a live frog sitting in a cool pan of water that gradually heats up to boiling and cooking the frog, whereas if the frog had encountered hot water to being with, it would have immediately jumped out of pan.

    Just last Sunday after church while in my car I heard John Young, who is a radio host on WNIV, state that he loved both Rev. Charles Stanley and John MacArthur.

    Now one wonders what kind of spiritual gymnastics it takes to love the teachings of traditional free grace via Stanley, and a works-based salvation as taught by MacArthur.

    The answer is that John Young must not realize that MacArthur teaches one receives eternal salvation by works instead of by grace. And this is someone in Christian radio who makes a living, among other announcer duties, interviewing Christian authors!

    Of course MacArthur says that the gift of eternal life is by grace through faith and not by works, but what he does is to redefine faith as to include submission, taking up or at least willing to take up one's cross, denying oneself, being willing to give all, willing to leave all behind, exchange all of oneself, promise to obey, etc... as an exchange in order to get something in return - the free gift of eternal life.

    And no matter how much one sacrifices for the cause of Christ, no matter how much ones believes in Christ and serves God, if that person falls away and never recovers, then to MacArthur, it means that the person was never born again, never saved. This is because his doctrine is based on Calvinism's "Perseverance of the Saints", which states that true saints will endure to the end. However, the Bible is clear that there are born-again saints who remain saved, but whose works are burned completely up (I Cor. 3:15). They could not have been said to have endured to the end in faithfulness to God.

    But the reason they are still saved is because they were saved by grace to begin with, and therefore were kept by God's grace. However they will suffer loss, and whatever it is they lose, they will not be able to obtain for all of eternity. This should give some pause who think that the issue of being rewarded is no big deal just as long as they make it into God's kingdom. It's ironic that both Calvinism and Arminianism marginalize the doctrine of eternal reward. In both systems, everyone in Heaven is pretty much equally rewarded, since all that are there have endured to the end.

    They twist Jesus' meaning when He said, “He that endures to the end shall be saved” (Matthew 10:22). Jesus here is not talking about a requirement to enter His kingdom, but rather about obtaining an abundant entrance into His kingdom (John 10:10; II Peter 1:11), for those who suffer for His sake will obtain a “better resurrection” (Hebrews 11:35). Being born as a child of God is free (John 4:10; Revelation 22:17), whereby one enters His kingdom; it's the growing up that requires work from us, whereby we are rewarded accordingly. The later is what the Apostle Paul was referring to when he said “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Phil:

    You wrote, "They are able to rationalize his heresies as exaggerations born out of his enthusiasm and zealousness..."

    The most common pharse I get from LS advocates is, "Those are just overstatements."

    That is how they dismiss the polarizing and extreme statements from MacArthur that truly reveals the extremes of his Lordship interpretation of the Gospel.

    However, I have been contacted by some men who were initially very upset with my book and blog articles. After a cooling off period they began to dig a little, and did finally come to find out for themselves that they did not fully understand what MacArthur's position is.

    Once they realized it, they began to pull back from defending LS.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  15. Lou said: The most common pharse I get from LS advocates is, "Those are just overstatements."

    Timely. One of the common defenses I hear for Zane Hodges' and Bob Wilkin's views amounts to "those are overstatements to counter LS"

    I find it telling that the defenders of both extremes use the same reasoning to the defend their icons.

    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  16. Men:

    Both the Lordship Salvation (LS) and "Crossless Gospel" (CG) camps try to counter errors, real or perceived. In their zeal to refute the other both go too far and wind up in extremes.

    Consequently, both answer the other's error by changing the terms of the Gospel.

    MacArthur's LS counters the Hodges CG position by adding to the Gospel.

    Hodges and Wilkin counters LS by subtracting from the Gospel.

    LS and the CG interpretations of the Gospel are heretical, non-saving messages that corrupt the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    There is balanced, biblical position at the center, but neither side is willing to, or no longer able to see it.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  17. Knetknight, I cannot support your statement that no teaching is sacred and that it is not an egregious error to question the traditional teachings of the church which make up the corpus of the faith. These core doctrines grounded upon Scriptures and have been carefully articulated and faithfully protected by our forefathers. Questioning and putting into doubt these teachings is tantamount to breaking faith with our forefathers as well as with our Lord. While you and others may wish to open the traditional corpus of faith for debate and revision, I agree that it is a most dangerous practice. The faithful must have the courage and wisdom to resist such calls to question and debate the fundamental corpus of the faith under the ungodly guise of intellectual inquiry and Christian modernity. The corpus of foundational teachings we have received defines the essence of our faith and should not be debated. Instead they are to be taught and patiently taught. The traditional teachings must be expounded upon, taught and defended repeatedly from the pulpit.

    The corpus of material which we must resist questioning and debating includes the eternal existence of God, that the Scriptures are divinely inspired, the inerrancy and infallibility of Scriptures, that God created the heavens and the earth, that the creation occurred in six twenty-four hour days as stated in Holy Writ, that Adam and Eve fell from grace and thereby brought sin into the world, that Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully divine, that each person from birth is in sinful rebellion against God, that Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the way to salvation, that Jesus Christ’s death is sufficient for salvation, that salvation is by divine grace not by the works of man, that we are to live lives that are obedient to the Spirit and the Word, that there will be bodily resurrection of the faithful, that God the Father will judge all including the eternal damnation of the wicked, etc. To place these teachings upon the table for examination and questioning is a most dangerous activity.

    You note Martin Luther as an example of questioning teachings handed down to him. I would note that his Ninety-Five Theses was an attack upon the Roman Catholic financial system and indulgences. In the days before posting his Ninety-five Theses he posted on the same door his Ninety-Three Theses which articulated the sufficiency of Jesus Christ for salvation and articulated justification by faith. The Ninety-Three Theses did not create a stir because it articulated many of the traditional teachings coming forth from from the foundation of the church. Martin Luther never questioned the corpus of the faith. He attacked the teachings of man. Errors and false teaching arise when the traditional teachings are questioned, debated and restated.

    Issues outside this corpus of faith is something over which the faithful may graciously debate. As for those in LS environments, they are an excellent example of the dangers of questioning the faith and teachings we have received and of which we must be upright stewards. They have gone astray by accepting the teachings of men who have questioned and restated traditional teachings as found in the corpus of the faith.

    Lou… you state that “The Bible, God's Word, must be our final authority for faith and practice. Would you agree with that?” I concur that Word of God is the final authority. I assume that you too recognize that the Word of God is read and interpreted within a complex context. I concur with John Calvin who taught us that the Bible should be interpreted with plain reason. We must also acknowledge that our plain reason can be faulty and therefore the teachings by our godly forefathers is crucial to help keep us from wondering off into heretical waters. Calvin drew repeatedly from his godly forefathers such as Augustine to help him to refine his thoughts and to give him pause. The operative phrase is “godly forefathers” as many of the church leaders have been godly teachers whose teachings should be accepted.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Joe said: I cannot support your statement that no teaching is sacred and that it is not an egregious error to question the traditional teachings of the church which make up the corpus of the faith.

    I might agree except that's not what I said. "No teaching is sacred just because it was handed down by supposedly godly forefathers." That is very different than what you seem to think I said and appear to be addressing.

    Calvin is a great example. I do not know where you stand exactly so I will presume for the moment that that you appear to consider Calvin a godly forefather. Should you then unquestionably accept all of his teachings? Whether or not you do, I do accept Calvin to the extent that I am currently a four point "Amyraldian" Calvinist. To be clear, I question the teaching of Limited atonement. I'm relatively new to taking a formal stand with traditional free grace and it is apparent that many free grace people are opposed to Calvinism in general and I'll hear that argument. My point is simply this: I consider John Calvin a godly forefather but my acceptance of his individual teachings are fair game for the chopping block if it is ever conclusively demonstrated that any one of them is incompatible with God's word. I consider him a godly forefather while still rejecting or accepting individual teachings based on a test against scripture. Same with Augustine or any other "godly forefather." Their individual teachings are fair game to be tested against scripture to see if they stand. Admittedly, time-tested teachings are less likely to fall because they are, after all, time tested. My exact point however is that they are not sacred just because they originated from a godly forefather as I, perhaps incorrectly, understand you to be saying. If that's not what you're saying then we have no point of contention. If that is what you're saying then it follows that you think acceptance of a forefather's teachings is essentially an all-or-nothing proposition based on whether or not we determine the individual to have been godly. No man, even a godly one, is infallible so I can't accept that proposition IF that is indeed what you're saying.

    Please explain, thanks.
    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  19. Stephen, there are many in the church who have debated and disagreed on various points. Luther, Calvin and Wesley are godly men who have differing views at various points. Yet on the corpus that forms the essentials of the faith they did not disagree.

    Please note that the extent of the atonement to which you note stands outside the corpus noted in my prior post.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Antonio's group creates a demand for MacArthurs books and in the process of defending the faith, MacArthur has overreacted and has gone overboard. I still don't see him as a serpent in hiding or a wolf in sheeps clothing. I do not agree with what He and Phil Johnsons group are doing right now.

    Personally and if you ask me, I think one of the most credible preachers today and because of the way he handles the gospel message is Dr Erwin Lutzer. You dont see him writing any books though. Mostly you see him using the gospel message to bring healing to this sin soaked world and He is doing it in a biblical way. When we get off on tangents, we are always going to fall into ditches like Antonio and MacArthur have fallen into or rabbit trails that in the long run prove to be of little benefit to the hearers, but rather create and foster an environment of heresy. I still dont like to call brothers...heretics. Even if they embrace heresy we must remember that not even Michael the Archangel brought a railing accusation against Satan, but rather said, "The Lord rebuke thee."

    I called Matthew a heretic once and I probably should not have. These brethren are being blinded by their own might, but we must still be careful when pulling the heresy trigger. I don't like to do that anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Joe:

    You wrote to me, "We must also acknowledge that our plain reason can be faulty and therefore the teachings by our godly forefathers is crucial to help keep us from wondering off into heretical waters."

    I agree that any one of us can wander off into error. Jeremy and all "Crossless" advocates are living examples of this sort of tragedy.

    IMO, most of them have come to the place where thay have elevated the teachings of Zane Hodges above the plain sense in the Word of God.

    In my study I read with discernment, asking the Holy Spirit to help me understand the Word of God. I also depend on the Spirit to keep me sensitive to and able detect error in the writing of men when it exists.

    In my study I will begin to write some thoughts and then go to various commentaries to cross check the direction I am headed.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  22. Only:

    You wrote, "Even if they embrace heresy we must remember that not even Michael the Archangel brought a railing accusation against Satan, but rather said, 'The Lord rebuke thee'."

    OK, but I have oft-noted the biblical mandates for our response to the teachers of doctrinal error and disobedient brethren.

    It is our duty, in fidelity to the Bible, to reprove, rebuke, and when necessary openly identify, have no company with, and separate from the teachers of false doctrine.

    The advocates of Lordship Salvation and the Crossless gospel are prime objects of such biblical mandates.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  23. Joe, your reasoning is somewhat circular because the authority you ascribe to your list seemingly comes from you in the first place. If not, please tell me what authority you did get it from.

    You said "Please note that the extent of the atonement to which you note stands outside the corpus noted in my prior post."

    Actually, your prior post doesn't clearly state anything specific about the extent of the atonement at all. You did say "... Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the way to salvation, that Jesus Christ’s death is sufficient for salvation,..." but you didn't specify the extent of the sufficiency and LA could snuggle in quite nicely.

    Your list of what you claim is "corpus of faith" is obviously not comprehensive since you had to retroactively claim that LA is out of it's bounds. Neither is it objective -- no universally accepted authority has stamped your specific list "the winner" so why should anyone accept it in the first place? e.g. Some would include the virgin birth in the corpus of faith, I do.

    You said: "Issues outside this corpus of faith is something over which the faithful may graciously debate."

    That really is the main point I was trying to draw out of you in my first post so I'm glad we essentially agree.

    Regards,
    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  24. To All:

    The de-Conversion blog is largely dedicated to the very kind of positions that any Bible-believing Christian ministry would terminate an employee over if he/she were sympathetic to them.

    My question is: Why does Jeremy publicly air details of his dismissal at de-Conversion and not his own blog?


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  25. Just one more note and I sincerely hope Jeremy reads this one.


    At de-Conversion Jeremy took a swipe at me. He suggested that because he needs a job I might help him get a job in the auto industry, but he commented in a sarcastic manner. Jeremy made a similar comment in reference to the auto industry at the end of his Heretic in Me article. In that article Jeremy indicated he knew his views would likely lead to a dismissal from Christian ministry and he would be in need of a new job.

    When you are looking for a job, and your family is depending on you to meet their needs, you need as many friends as possible to assist you in the job hunt.

    I happen to be in management at one of the best known, largest and most reputable multi-line dealerships in the nation. If Jeremy were not sarcastic about it, and toward me, I could very well help get him placed at a location in Texas or anywhere else for that matter.

    At the right location you can make a comfortable and honest living.

    Jeremy, if you want some help in this direction, you have my e-mail address.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  26. Lou, that's compassionate of you. I know you well enough personally to know that you're sincere. I don't know Jeremy's financial situation but, for me, losing my job is my number one personal nightmare.

    Jeremy, if you don't mind me asking, what kind of job are you looking for? Maybe others could help too.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Actually Lutzer is writing some books that "touch" on these subjects. They're not entitled "Lordship/FreeGrace Debate", but he addresses related topics. His book about the Judgment Seat of Christ would especially be relevant. Here are a few titles:

    “One Minute After you Die” 1997, revised in 2007
    “Slandering Jesus” 2007
    “Your Eternal Reward: Triumph and Tears at the Judgment Seat of Christ” 1998
    “How You Can Be Sure That You Will Spend Eternity with God” 1998

    ReplyDelete
  28. Knet:

    Who hasn’t faced and probably lived out the nightmare of unemployment? I have.

    In my article Your First Step Won’t be Your Last… (which I republished out of concern for where I saw Jeremy headed, and wanting to caution others) I included this thought,


    I have spent many years in both full-time ministry and the secular workplace. It does not take long to learn that you are going to meet with discouragement in either sphere. I have been gainfully employed on Monday and unemployed on Tuesday. Twice in the last 25 years, I have known what it is like to wonder where the next paycheck is coming from. My wife and I have been in the grocery store with a short list, hoping we would not have to leave anything behind once we discovered our total at the checkout. I have looked at my wife and children and reminded God that they need to see Him work on their behalf and provide for them through me. Then reassuring truths like the following come to mind:

    I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread,” (Ps. 37:25).

    Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you,” (Matthew 6:31-33).



    I can remember going to work one day (in 1983) and being told that the company was being down-sized and I was among the number being down-sized with it. I was released, went home, and told my wife I wanted to take her and our 1 year old daughter out for lunch. We had a lovely time at lunch, and did a little shopping.

    Once we got home I broke the news. My wife’s face went ashen. I was scared too, but I believed and told her that with God’s help I will get a new job, and in the meantime He will meet our needs according to His promises. I took on a temporary job to meet the basic needs, and set out to get a new permanent job. Within 45 days I had a new job that brought me to Chicago, where I always seem to come back to.

    I share all this so that Jeremy understands I understand exactly what he is going through right now.

    If I can give him one piece of solid advice, it would be this, You have a full time job, and that is finding a new job.”

    Get up every day like you are going to work and get to work at getting a new job!



    LM

    ReplyDelete
  29. Shawn:

    Welcome, have you been here before? Please give a brief intro if you please.

    I am not familiar with Lutzer.

    Can you give a synopsis of the direction he takes in these books you mention?

    Thanks,


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  30. Lou,

    Lutzer is the Pastor of Moody Memorial Church in Chicago. Onlylook mentioned him above. I've heard Lutzer speak several times at Moody Pastor's Conference.

    I'm the Executive Pastor at a large, independent Baptist church in the Midwest (we have multiple affiliations including the SBC and Bible Baptist Fellowship); I'm also currently finishing my MABL (MA in Biblical Languages) at a SBC seminary.

    Your gestures toward's Jeremy are very gracious.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Shawn:

    Thanks for the reply. Since I live in suburban Chicago you'd think I would know about Lutzer at Moody.

    I appreciate the bio you included. Good to get as much training as one can endure and afford. :-)

    I attend an Independent Fundamental Baptist church. I was a missionary to South Africa (1996-1999) with Baptist World Mission. I have an M.A. in Bible Exposition (1995) from Pensacola Christian College.

    As for my gestures to Jeremy, they are sincere, and I hope he will be made aware of them.

    Feel free to visit any time.

    Kind regards,


    Lou

    PS: If you want some additonal details about me, which church I attend, etc. send me an e-mail. The link to my e-mail is under the my book cover.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Lou -

    I'd be interested in where Lutzer falls - LS or FG. I understand him to be a four point Calvinist out of DTS. I haven't read him much but would suspect he is somewhat out of the Swindoll mold.

    JL

    ReplyDelete
  33. Jon:

    I really don't know.

    If Shawn looks in again I'd like for him to give us a sense of that. Can you help us on that Shawn?


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  34. It would be hard to nail Lutzer as a Swindoll man as Lutzer does not agree with as much of the entertainment nature that Swindoll embraces. Lutzer hates that this nation of believers is in love with Hollywood so. Also he is from Canada. I enjoy Swindoll but dont always agree with Him. Lutzer makes good sound theology very practical though to the everyday believer without drifting into contextualization. I think as a four pointer he may be close to where I am, but he hesitates to put to much creedance on the Calvinist label or to join any of the Calvin love fests that go on out here in Phil Johnsons big top world with Barnum and Bailey. He wisely stays out of the loop and all the peer pressure that goes along with it in the Lordship or quasi Lordship movement. If you ever listen to him you will notice that he takes great care with everyword that comes from his lips. I have learned a great deal from him, but still do not wish to follow him as he is just a dude as well. He is however the closest preacher out there that I find that I agree with almost all of the time.

    He comes on BBN radio every morning at 7:30 for 15 minutes. Eastern time. Maybe 6:30 for those of you in Texas. I would encourage Jeremy to listen to him as well. He is very good with reconciliatory wisdom but does not compromise the truth at all.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Bro. Brian,

    You have hit the nail on the head concerning Dr. Lutzer. I was going to post when I got the chance, but I am glad the Lord didn't allow the opportunity since you did a much better job than I could have! God Bless.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Brian thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. You are nice.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hey brother David. I was listeing to you today as I was crossing the James River Bridge from Newport News to Suffolk/Smithfield area. It was a good time of prayer as I watched the wind on the water and quietly meditated about the seed and the sower. You are very careful about every word as well. A true blessing. I enjoy you about as much as I do Lutzer. You always seem to hit the nail on the head and use your words with care. It ministers to me, because I all to often don't:-)

    Your welcome Matthew. Do you listen to Lutzer?

    David,

    I have also always appreciated Dr Joe Jordan as well. I have been enjoying his talks with Dr Ryrie. Very good insights by Ryrie. It is unfotunate that both the GES as well as the Lordships always seem to slight him. I really like his insights. He only made one point this week that I still questioned and that was that Jesus was preparing to bring the Kingdom of God in the Jewish Messianic reign but He was rejected and so he moved to the Gentiles. I believe that moving to the Gentiles was always the plan and the Jewish nation was looking for that reign but rejected Him because he was going to the cross instead of taking His Kingship. It seemed as though Ryrie was saying God changed plans or something. But I do agree that the dispensations are pertinent in understanding how God works and the end result of His Messianic reign we did agree on Him. I still have a lot of reading to do before I decide whether I am progressive dispy or of Ryries dispensationalism, but I think he made some excellent points. I need to read his book.

    Ah there is so much to learn and so little time.

    Love in Christ and grace upon grace,

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  38. Greetings bro. Lou.

    Bro. Brian,

    I am humbled by your gracious comments. You are a blessing to me as well. Thank you very much.

    Concerning Dr. Ryrie, you are so right. IMHO, his "Balancing the Christian Life" is one of the best books I've ever read on the Christian life. Also, his "So Great Salvation" beats bro. Hodges' "Absolutely Free" hands down as a refutation to MacArthur's "The Gospel According to Jesus" as a biblical reply to Commitment Salvation as well. Dr. Ryrie is so balanced & biblical, again, IMO. Take care & God Bless.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dave:

    Hi, I am enjoying the interaction between you men.

    I agree with your views on Ryrie's Balancing and So Great. I quote both in my book.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  40. Thanks bro. Lou. I am enjoying the interaction with bro. Brian as well.

    This is no big deal & I am not trying to be a pill, but I'd appreciate being called David, rather than Dave, IYDM. Thanks!!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dear David:

    Sorry about that. My youngest son is named, David. We always call him that and I'll be sure to do that for you.

    I read you do a radio broadcast. I used to be an on-air personality in secular and then some in Christian radio.

    Where and when can I hear your broadcast?

    Kind regards,


    Lou

    PS: I appreciate you acknowledging the change in direction of the GES at Rose's blog. It has been going on quite some time, but until last year it was mostly under the radar.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thanks bro. Lou about the name thing! No problem.

    Yes sir I would be glad for you to check out the broadcast. It is on BBN Radio, if you are familiar with that. If you live in Chicago, unfortunately we do not have any stations there. We are available on the Internet at www.bbnradio.org. I do a 5 minute devotional every Monday through Saturday at 1:15 PM Eastern Time right before our Famila Altar prayer time.
    Yes, the GES shift breaks my heart. God Bless.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hey thanks for the info David. I have thought about getting a Ryrie Study Bible but feel a bit guilty since I already have so many. Maybe I will find a cheaper paperback one on half.com. I want to read his dispensationalism as well. I need to check out those books he listed. It really does sound like he has balance. I hope that one day Phil Johnsons crowd will see that they have made a mistake in attacking the gracious position he takes. As far as my listening to him...it seems to me to be the only postion of grace to take:-)

    Love in Christ as we rest firmly in His love grip...grace upon grace,

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  44. Thanks Lou for providing this sweet time of fellowship with my brother David. For so many years I have listened to BBN and felt so much reconciliation to my precious Jesus as the whole staff ministered to me in so many dark hours of my life letting me know that God has always been faithful and has not forgotten his child.

    May we always have our sweet communion and blessed fellowship with the brethren on top of our list and keep ourselves in the love of God as we defend the blessed faith.

    Love in Christ,

    Brian

    P.S- If BBN isn't on then I usually cut my radio off and just pray:-)

    So glad that High Point station is getting its signal back. Now most of the areas of NC in which I travel have good signals. The only time I start to lose a signall is when I enter Petersburg Virginia and travel around the 295 loop. The Ashland station is weak and does not go far as I lose it again going into the Fredricksburg area. It must not be as popular in the Richmond area.

    The other contemporary stations dont hold a candle, but I still enjoy some of it. My heart is ministered mostly to in the quietness as I lay before His throne. It is a blessed time of fellowship.

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hey bro. Brian,

    I agree, it is sweet fellowship! What a wonderful Savior we serve. He is so good to a no-good like me! I agree about BBN! We loved it before the Lord graciously called us there. We have really fought a spiritual battle with WHPE. I am so thankful that it is back up! Keep praying. I will pray for you as the Lord brings you to my mind. You are a blessing.

    Thanks again bro. Lou for the ministry.

    ReplyDelete
  46. David!!!

    I've taken some of the courses and BBNBI!

    I didn't know you were involved there. That's fantastic. :)

    I don't really have anything to add to the conversation here right now.. I'm just all pleased to know you're over there. :)

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  47. Oh and you may or may not know that I write for radio - www.thecrosscurrent.ca is the outreach side of the show and www.thecrosscurrent.net/new is our under-development ministry side.

    Kev

    ReplyDelete
  48. Bro. Kev,

    That is exciting! Glad to know who you are! May the Lord bless you as you study for Him!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Bro. Lou,

    I apologize for getting us off topic. God Bless.

    ReplyDelete
  50. David:

    No problem, I am enjoying the comments you men are sharing here.

    I'll get more involved tomorrow.

    For the last few days Kevl & I have been dealing with the egregious teaching of Antonio da Rosa at Rose's blog.

    See my comments on Feb. 2 & 3 if you like.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  51. Today the GES removed Jeremy's image and bio from their (GES) web site. No announcment.


    LM

    ReplyDelete