The subject of his notes has to do with the FGA’s Covenant. In particular he addresses the “obvious meaning” of the Covenant’s Affirmation #3, which states,
“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.”In Dr. Bing’s article the following appears in regard to Affirmation #3,
“I think it speaks for itself about the content of what must be believed for a person to be saved. Since this is not a peripheral issue, there is a strong feeling among the FGA Executive Council that we affirm the necessity of believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for salvation. That is the message we want to work together to advance in the world.”In my opinion, this clarifying statement from the FGA President effectively ends any further speculation over whether or not an advocate of the Grace Evangelical Society’s Crossless gospel can, in good conscience, sign agreement with the FGA Covenant. Lord willing this announcement signals the end of the “divisions and offences” that were introduced into the FGA through the “contrary” doctrine of the Crossless gospel.
With the FGA Covenant’s “obvious meaning” made clear the FGA can begin to advance the mission for which it was formed.
Please visit the FGA web site and read From the President for the full article.
Yours faithfully,
Lou Martuneac
Please visit the FGA web site and read From the President for the full article.
Yours faithfully,
Lou Martuneac
Hi Lou,
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to let you know that I made a comment on your July 21st entry on Lordship and was hoping that you would respond. I wasn't sure if you'd look at it since the conversation ended a week ago.
Thanks.
Bridget
Praise the Lord for men that realize that truth will indeed win out in the end. May this body of believers continue to be obedient to the Lord here and continue correctly proclaiming the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteGrace upon grace,
Brian
Hi Brian:
ReplyDeleteI am grateful for what appears to be the beginning of the GES camp finally being isolated into their own cell of Crossless advocates.
As long as they are/were in the FGA there would be the presence of "contrary" doctrine to the detriment of the Lord's blessing and the FGA's effectiveness.
Lou
This is a good thing. Hopefully the beginning of a real "conservative" movement within the FGA that affirms that "Truth" CAN be known and can reasonably be expected to be known and accepted.
ReplyDeleteI sympathize with those who wish to remove any and every man made roadblock between the sinner and salvation but we must always rely only on what Scripture says.
God provided a FREE and PERFECT salvation through Christ's work. Let us simply proclaim that and thereby be used in bringing the Glory that God bought to Him.
Kev
To All:
ReplyDeleteYesterday, at a GES Crossless gospel blog an interesting comment was posted. This person's suggestion to the Crossless gospel advocates is a good one.
Have you read Dr. Bing's article in the newest FGA newsletter?
It may be time for us to move on and support the free grace organizations that best represents our views. The Lord used both, Paul and Barnabas when they could no longer work together. My prayer is that it would be true of us in free grace. Reconciliation may be in our futures, but not at this time, just read the blogs representing free grace theology. Lord help us to move on as we present the message of, faith alone in Christ alone.
The time for GES gospel advocates "to move on" is long overdue. I am hopeful reconciliation can one day be achieved, but never at the expense of compromise with these men as long as they hold to the non-saving, reductionist gospel.
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your e-mail. Your message certainly warrants my further research into many of these blogs and teachings. I must admit that I was one who did not want to get caught up in endless arguments; however, the Lord reminded me today of what we must do to defend the truth of the gospel:
Titus 1
10For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
11Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
We have a responsibility to rebuke those who pervert the truth, with the goal that they become sound in the faith.
I must admit that I do not get involved in movements or denominations. My desire is to seek and speak the truth. I would invite you and your readers to visit servantsofthekingdom.blogspot.com, as I am discussing the issue of renewed thinking.
Ron:
ReplyDeleteThanks for looking to the Scriptures. There are those biblical mandates that guide our actions when false teaching threatens the church.
Lordship Salvation and the GES Crossless gospel are IMO the two most dangerous views in the church because they are being perpetuated by well-known men who are part of the body of Christ.
I’ll look in on your blog.
LM
I hope the FGA quickly rewrites its doctrinal statement to unequivocally present its views. Perhaps this will spur other organizations, para-church groups and even local church assemblies themselves to strive for greater precision in their writings. I stated elsewhere that SharperIron needed to rewrite their qualifications for membership.
ReplyDeleteEven if I disagree with someone's written doctrinal position, it certainly is better for everyone to have them unambiguously expressed.
Even in this thread, something caught my attention. Kevl said,
"I sympathize with those who wish to remove any and every man made roadblock between the sinner and salvation but we must always rely only on what Scripture says.
God provided a FREE and PERFECT salvation through Christ's work. Let us simply proclaim that and thereby be used in bringing the Glory that God bought to Him."
I don't think any card-carrying GES member (which I admit I am not) would disagree with these three statements at all. Yet, we know the Kevl considers his position to be at odds with GES'. Why is the disconnect not obvious? The statments lack something. We have not been told that in addition to God providing a free and perfect salvation through Christ's work, we must also have explicit knowledge of certain aspects of this work to be saved.
The difference in the positions is not simply the requirement of knowledge, as GES requires knowledge as well, in my opinion. The difference is in the content of the knowledge.(I am equating believing with knowledge. If I know something, then I believe it to be true. If I believe something to be true, then I would consider that knowledge.)
Looker:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the note. I am signing off for the night, but saw you posted the above. I have time for only a brief reply.
Dr. Bing’s clarification the “obvious meaning” of the FGA covenant made its views clear. It was the Crossless gospel men who redefined the meaning to suit their reductionist theology and to justify their membership in FGA. Now, no one who holds to the GES Crossless can remain in the FGA membership in good conscience. The clarification will purify the FGA membership from the corrupting influence of GES gospel advocates.
As for “content of knowledge,” let’s be clear that the GES insists a lost man does not have to be aware of, know, understand or believe in who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation, but can still be born again. One of the most extreme and doctrinally out-of-balance GES members goes even further. He states that the lost can be saved no matter what misconceptions he holds about the Lord. I’ll link you to more examples, please read Heresy of the “Crossless” Gospel: Verified & Affirmed!
Good night,
LM
Hi Looker,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments about mine :) It's impossible to post everything in each post we make.. :)
The difference between what I believe and what the GES says a sinner must believe is 1 Cor 15:1-11 where the Apostle Paul declares the Gospel. A plain reading of this section shows us exactly what must be "received" for a person to be saved. The GES holds that the Gospel or "what must be received" is not clearly defined in Scripture. Having read the Apostles inspired words I can not find agreement with the GES.
Kev
Kev:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “The difference between what I believe and what the GES says a sinner must believe is 1 Cor 15:1-11 where the Apostle Paul declares the Gospel. A plain reading of this section shows us exactly what must be 'received' for a person to be saved. The GES holds that the Gospel or ‘what must be received’ is not clearly defined in Scripture. Having read the Apostles inspired words I can not find agreement with the GES.”
That was generous because as well all have read the GES Crossless gospel and find it is far more heretical than that. One can read their advocates declaring the lost can be saved no matter what misconceptions they have about Jesus Christ. This includes open denial of His deity.
Lou
Yes it was overly generous..
ReplyDeleteThey believe someone can be saved without any agreement with Scripture. I do not. That is the real distinction in it's wholeness, yet simplified.
Kev
Kev:
ReplyDeleteAs for the Bing's clarification of the Covenant I am hopeful the Crossless men will us this as an opportunity to do the right thing, which is gracefully resign from the FGA.
The GES/Crossless camp should be content to fellowship amongst their like-minded brethren and stop trying to infuse the FGA with their “contrary” views.
I did notice at a pro-Crossless blog that one encouraged the people at that blog to acknowledge the debate is over the FGA covenant is over and move on. I hope they will do so.
Lou
Kev,
ReplyDeleteNicely said:
"The difference between what I believe and what the GES says a sinner must believe is 1 Cor 15:1-11 where the Apostle Paul declares the Gospel. A plain reading of this section shows us exactly what must be "received" for a person to be saved. The GES holds that the Gospel or "what must be received" is not clearly defined in Scripture. Having read the Apostles inspired words I can not find agreement with the GES."
These words are Biblical and quotable, I love it!
JP
Hi JP:
ReplyDeleteThat was a great quote, glad you noted it.
I never cease to be amazed at how the Hodges, Wilkin, GES camp divorces the specific content of the Gospel from what the lost must believe/receive for salvation.
Lou