“Jesus Christ, God incarnate, paid the full penalty for man’s sin when He died on the cross of Calvary. Any person who, in simple faith, trusts in the risen Christ as his or her only hope of heaven, refusing to trust in anything else, receives the gift of eternal life, which once granted, can never be lost.That previous statement was revised. Following is the current version of the GES Affirmation of Belief.
The sole condition for receiving eternal salvation from hell is faith (trust) in the Lord Jesus Christ, Who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man's sin and rose from the dead (John 3:16-18; 6:47; Acts 16:31).”
“The sole condition for receiving everlasting life is faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ, who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man’s sin and rose bodily from the dead (John 3:16-18; 6:47; Acts 16:31).In the former Affirmation, “Jesus Christ” is identified as deity by use of the term, “God incarnate.” This reference to the Lord’s deity has been deleted from the current Affirmation.
Faith is the conviction that something is true. To believe in Jesus (‘he who believes in Me has everlasting life’) is to be convinced that He guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it (John 4:14; 5:24; 6:47 ; 11:26 ; 1 Tim 1:16 ).”
Furthermore, the previous statement included, “any person who, in simple faith, trusts in the risen Christ... .” That simple statement summarizes Christ’s deity, incarnation, death and resurrection. As it appeared then, the statement was perfectly consistent with Romans 10:9-10 in regards to trust (believing) in the resurrected Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The statement also includes the word “trust.”
The revisions to the GES Affirmation were made with purpose. In the new version, the relative clause is parenthetical. When the GES says, “faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ who died...” they do NOT mean that the lost person needs to understand and believe Jesus died and rose again. They simply mean a lost man must believe in the name “Jesus” as the Giver of eternal life.
GES spells out their contents of belief in very next sentence, “To believe in Jesus...is to be convinced that He guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it.” This is not a paraphrase or roundabout way of stating their position. This is literally the GES definition of the only necessary content of faith for the reception of eternal life. According to the GES, understanding and/or believing the cross, His resurrection and deity are not necessary for salvation. These are the doctrinal truths that Zane Hodges (1932-2008) referred to as “excess baggage” in an encounter with the unsaved.
You can note the phrase “faith…in the risen Christ” has been eliminated from the current affirmation. Because Bob Wilkin and GES view the Lord’s resurrection as “excess baggage,” they will no longer use descriptive phrases such as that. You will also notice also that the word “trusts” has been removed.
The GES continues to drift far from a balanced biblical position on the Gospel. The revisions of the GES Affirmation of Belief on salvation affirms and verifies Bob Wilkin personally and, on behalf of GES, officially adopted the late Zane Hodges’s legacy, which was his unbiblical and reductionist interpretation of the content of saving faith, commonly known as the Crossless Gospel.
LM
*There is a third paragraph that is not germane to our discussion. You may visit the GES web site to view that third paragraph. It is my policy to avoid linking guest to sites that propagate heretical views on major doctrines. Because of its Crossless/Deityless interpretation of the Gospel, GES is such a site.
This article is a revised version of a thread comment first posted by Greg Schliesmann.
The revised GES Affirmation of Beliefs (AOB)is yet another vivid illustration of our Advisary's attempt to take as many to hell with him as he possibly can. Those responsible for the revised AOB know not they are merely pawns, for if they did, they would repent TODAY.
ReplyDeleteHi Lou,
ReplyDeleteThe change in GES' Affirmation of Belief is both startling and revealing.
Note also that the old version said, "The sole condition for receiving eternal salvation from hell...". The new version eliminates all talk of "salvation" and "hell" and merely says that "[t]he sole condition for receiving everlasting life" is faith alone. This change likely reflects their new position that no one at all needs "salvation" from their sins any longer, the only need we have now is eternal life. This change also reminds me of Jeremy Myers not even wanting to use the word "saved" when speaking of a person being born again, because of his view that the Bible rarely, if ever, uses the word in such a manner.
I also note that in the older version, "trust" is used as a paranthetical synonym for "faith", whereas the word "trust" is deleted from the new version. This also brings to mind Hodges' article in which he argues that using the word "trust" in a salvation invitation somehow confuses the saving message!
These changes make manifestly clear the reductionist position of the GES and their followers.
Jimmy:
ReplyDeleteIt is sad and disturbing that the kind of reductionist assault on the Person and finished work of Christ could have been forged in the mind of man, Zane Hodges, that was a genuine child of God.
I can't explain how this happened, but it did. IMO his followers are not going to repent because their consciences have been seared. They are going to take up his Crossless gospel and out of some sense of allegiance do what they can to propagate it.
I can, however, assure you that there are those of us who will never cease from watching and warning any time the GES tries to introduce this heresy to any unsuspecting believers or fellowships.
I think the Crossless gospel is going to stay pretty well contained within the shrinking cell of theological extremists that have tragically fallen into the trap of the Crossless gospel and become the prime instigators of that egregious error.
LM
Rachel:
ReplyDeleteThanks for looking in on this and bringing out the seldom mentioned GES position on sin, which we discussed recently.
Bob Wilkin does not believe sin separates the lost from everlasting life. In his opinion, no one will be condemned because of their sins. They will be condemned because their names are not in the Book of Life.
At the GES website you will find their official interpretation of the gospel. The article is titled, How Can I Be Saved? In that article this statement appears,
Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the whole world (John1:29). He has removed the sin barrier which separated us from God. However, we still lack spiritual life, eternal life. To get that life, we must simply believe Jesus for it.
The specific details of the GES statement have not been fleshed out by Bob Wilkin. One can, however, see the connection GES is making. Since sin is not an issue anymore, the only problem is life, thus all we need to believe is who can give that life. Knowledge of our sin and/or believing in Christ’s payment for it is logically unnecessary in their system. They appear to think Christ’s death merely removed sin as a barrier between God and men, but that (for some reason) men still need forgiveness from God.
In the blogs one of the most theologically out-of-balance, unethical and vitriolic GES members wrote, “One needs eternal and temporal forgiveness of sins even though Christ died to remove the barrier.” This, of course makes no sense, but none of the GES interpretation of the Gospel does.
Thanks again,
Lou
Lou,
ReplyDeleteJust a question about your position on Zane Hodges and his followers. I did not wish to ask you this in the post on his passing.
You say that "It is sad and disturbing that the kind of reductionist assault on the Person and finished work of Christ could have been forged in the mind of man, Zane Hodges, that was a genuine child of God". I understand that to mean that you believe that Mr. Hodges was a genuine born-again Christian. Since we agree that he was teaching a reductionist "gospel" that does not reflect the Biblical Gospel is it possible that he was not a true Christian?
Next on this statement:
"his followers are not going to repent because their consciences have been seared. They are going to take up his Crossless gospel and out of some sense of allegiance do what they can to propagate it"
Does this mean that you believe many of his followers are not truly saved? I certainly believe that very well maybe the case.
If so, what do you believe Mr. Hodges real legacy will be?
Thanks for your continued support of the truth against error!
Thanks
Martin.
Hi Martin:
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by.
You asked, “I understand that to mean that you believe that Mr. Hodges was a genuine born-again Christian. Since we agree that he was teaching a reductionist 'gospel' that does not reflect the Biblical Gospel is it possible that he was not a true Christian?”
IMO, Zane Hodges was a born again Christian. Over time and culminating with his final published article, The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism he steadily drifted into some of the most extreme, reductionist errors ever seen in the New Testament church. Teaching that has never been seen until he introduced his Crossless & Deityless interpretation of the Gospel.
FWIW, although many who reject Lordship Salvation just as I do, I am among those who do believe John MacArthur is born again. Some men I cooperate with in the LS debate insist MacArthur, by virtue of his works based and man-centered gospel, is an unsaved man.
Then in regard to this comment of mine, “his followers are not going to repent because their consciences have been seared. They are going to take up his Crossless gospel and out of some sense of allegiance do what they can to propagate it”
You asked, “Does this mean that you believe many of his followers are not truly saved? I certainly believe that very well maybe the case.”
I would have to believe that most, if not all of his inner circle of followers, are born again. However, a number of them are the most vitriolic, combative, dishonest, ill-mannered, carnal, unethical men I have ever encountered in Christian or secular circles.
As far as I am concerned Hodges was, Wilkin, Stephen Lewis and the shrinking GES membership are heretics of the first order and must be resisted any time they try to propagate their heresies outside their own small cell of theological extremists.
Finally you asked, “If so, what do you believe Mr. Hodges real legacy will be?”
To define his real legacy I would have to point to his final article, which I referenced above. He had fallen into such gross heresy with his reductionist assaults on the content saving faith he finally condemned every man who, rejected his reductionist teaching, and who may have once appreciated him.
I am going to have more on this in a future article. For now read his The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism article. That article articulates the legacy of Zane Hodges and it must not be allowed gain any new ground and/or deceive even one more unsuspecting believer.
LM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMartin:
ReplyDeleteI want to reiterate some earlier discussions that spin from the egregious errors of the Grace Evangelical Society’s (GES) Crossless & Deityless interpretation of the content of saving faith.
There are some, chief among them, Rose (of the pro-Crossless gospel blogs Rose's Reasonings and Unashamed of Grace) that are willing to lend sympathy and support for the reductionist heresies coming from GES and its extremist members. In the name of being “reasonable” she and some few others like her are *ecumenical toward the teachers of the Crossless heresy. Rose has chosen friendship and cooperation with the teachers of a false, non-saving message at the expense of fidelity to the Scriptures.
Even at Rose’s pro- Crossless group blog, UoG, Matthew’s promotion and endorsement of Joey Faust’s Millennial Exclusion heresy was not enough to evoke a strong protest from her.
We must obey the Scriptural mandates to “admonish...withdraw,” reject,” to mark and avoid” the teachers of false, “contrary” doctrine. In this discussion we speak of the GES’s Gospel, which is a direct reductionist assault on the Lord’s Person and finished work (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Titus 3:10; Rom. 16:17-18). Rose has gone so far as to try to negate and redefine the clear teaching of these passages to avoid what is there.
Stephen Stark wrote a very powerful and penetrating look at this mind-set we see from Rose. Reasoning on Rose: We Just Can’t Know?
Then the companion article, ReDux on Rose’s, “We Just Can’t Know?”
IMO, ecumenicals like Rose pose a potentially greater danger to the unsuspecting. One can quickly read works by the GES extremists and recognize the obvious reductionist absurdities that originated with Zane Hodges. Rose, however, runs interference for and becomes a bridge to these heresies and some could be swayed by her to give the Crossless gospel a chance. Anyone who succumbs to these egregious errors would become a genuine tragedy of the Crossless gospel and this cannot be allowed to happen unchecked.
After all, Rose insists that the GES’s reductionist errors on the content of saving faith are mere, “theory,” a “doctrinal nuance,” and a “difference of opinion that is acceptable.” This, of course, could only be coming from one who has adopted an ecumenical mindset, or worse. Could Rose have been deceived through her many months of close interaction with the advocates of and has herself consequently EMBRACED the Crossless gospel?
LM
*Ecumenism- Rose’s ecumenism is NOT the classic sense of unifying many of the world’s religions into a single Christian church. There is, however, a spirit of ecumenism in Rose’s interaction with the advocates of the Crossless gospel and her trying to legitimize it as an acceptable interpretation of the saving message. She also shows a very strong and definite disdain for any who refuse to accept the reductionist heresies coming from GES and her CG friends and blog partners.
I generally haven't been involved in the GES crossless gospel discussion as it isn't an issue in the circles in which I travel. Everyone I know would jump all over it as heresy.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I must say this new revision is extremely disturbing. First of all, there was nothing wrong with the original AOB. Why change it at all? Worse, how is making the gospel less clear helpful?? The original is quite plain. This revision is deceptive and confusing. If I wasn't familiar with the GES, or had heard they were a good organization, and went there and saw this AOB, I might easily miss the error. However, it is in comparison with the original that the error is made plain. But if I never saw the original, how would I know?
To find subtlety wielded to this degree is very unnerving.
This is extremely disturbing.
JanH
Jan:
ReplyDeleteThanks for noting what you discovered in and about the GES Affirmation of Belief.
You wrote, “This revision is deceptive and confusing. If I wasn’t familiar with the GES, or had heard they were a good organization, and went there and saw this AOB, I might easily miss the error… To find subtlety wielded to this degree is very unnerving.”
That is why we must do all we can to sound the alarm about the Crossless gospel and the GES. The reductionist errors can and IMO have been easily missed.
The Crossless crowd, especially Rose, mock when I refer to the “unsuspecting” who could be deceived by the teaching of Hodges and Wilkin.
It is exactly them, the “unsuspecting,” that could be deceived if not forewarned about what is the Crossless gospel is and the subtlety with which the Crossless gospel is introduced.
LM
Hello Jan. I second what you observed. When our church was exposed to this teaching unaware, Wilkin was a last-minute special speaker, people thought we were making stuff up when we exposed the strange doctrine of the GES... until we could show them the CHANGES. Once we did that, like you, the wheels started clicking and the leaders we talked to reacted much like you and asked, "why the changes?" Without the original to compare it is indeed very deceptive and I'm thankful to Lou for helping us preserve those differences for others to find and see for themselves. The light exposes the GES position; it is only when they operate in shadows and subterfuge that most churches, like ours, even let them in the door.
ReplyDeleteStephen/Jan:
ReplyDeleteBob Wilkin’s subtle revision of the GES Affirmation of Belief is (as you have noted) deceptive, confusing and unnerving. It is this kind of masking of the egregious errors and “subterfuge” with which GES propagates the Crossless gospel that must be exposed and biblically answered.
Your comments convinced me that this article needs to be kept on the front page of my blog. I have, therefore, added this article to my Top Picks archive so that all who visit in the future will be able to access this article.
LM
I have no idea why you singled out Rose for mention in this discussion.
ReplyDeleteGiven all the 'heretical stuff' that I have said on Unashamed of Grace it seems bizarre that you bring up Rose for special mention.
Matthew:
ReplyDeleteMy meaning is clear for those who know the egregious theological errors of GES, interacted with and have observed Roses's allegiances to the reductionist teachings of Hodges and Wilkin.
Now, do you have anything you'd like to contribute to this article on the reductionist changes Bob Wilkin made to the GES Affirmation of Beliefs?
Maybe you could react to Jan who wrote, "Why change it (AOB) at all? Worse, how is making the gospel less clear helpful?? The original is quite plain. This revision (of the AOB) is deceptive and confusing."
LM
That question of "why change it?" is leading to more uncomfortable questions:
ReplyDeleteDoes this change mean to imply that there was something wrong with the original?
If so, what?
Is this then a sort of admission of "error"?
Are they repenting of their former position?
What aspects exactly do they feel need repenting? (That's probably bad grammer but I hope you know what I mean.)
How is this supposed to be an improvement?
What are they trying to accomplish by making these changes?
Is it even rational for Christ's sacrifice for us to become secondary to Himself, even if only by vague implication?
Here is the real issue:
When they say, "The sole condition for receiving everlasting life is faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ, who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man's sin and rose bodily from the dead..." it seems as though it is the Person alone that is at issue and the singular thing we must believe He did is almost irrelevant or at least somehow separate from Himself. The impossibility of this should be evident. One does not and cannot receive everlasting life or believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in any saving way unless one believes in His substitutionary atoning death on the cross for us. It is precisely at this exact place that the heaven or hell distinction is made before the Father. It is our acceptance or rejection of this very sacrifice of this very Person and its sufficiency that is the turning point as far as heaven is concerned. You cannot have one without the other. It is not intended that one could be had without the other. To diminish this connection is to diminish if not obliterate the gospel itself.
So WHY would anyone who loves the Lord Jesus Christ ever concede to doing such a thing?
I am unhappy with the new doctrine they are espousing, but I am also grieved about what they are threatening to leave behind. I just don't see why they would want to do that. What are they thinking and why are they thinking it?
Our union with the Father comes soley in our crucifixion with Christ and our resurrection in Him. You cannot have eternal life without having the Christ Who is our Life. You cannot have the Christ Who is our Life without His substitutionary atoning death on the cross. You cannot have Him without it. You cannot have Him distinct from it. You cannot have Him in front of it. You cannot have Him in primacy over it. You cannot have Him if the cross is incidental in any way. You cannot have Him in any other way but through the cross on which He died in your place. No cross, no Christ. They are inseparable.
So why are they suggesting a separation where none CAN exist?
JanH
Jan:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the latest contribution.
I want to highlight this, "One does not and cannot receive everlasting life or believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in any saving way unless one believes in His substitutionary atoning death on the cross for us...No cross, no Christ. They are inseparable."
This illustrates one reason why, the reductionist teaching of GES on the content of saving faith is appropriately called the Crossless Gospel.
I really do appreciate the precision and eloquence with which you drew this out.
Lou
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMatthew:
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to tolerate your misrepresenting anyone's intentions, character or motives, especially when you have it exactly backwards.
Stay on topic of this thread if you want to comment at all.
LM
To All:
ReplyDeleteI am reposting an edited version of Matthew's (Celestial Fundie) previous comment, which I had to delete above. I have removed only his opening offensive remark.
Here is his edited comment on Jan's notes above, for your consideration.
LM
BEGIN:
This comment: "Why change it (AOB) at all? Worse, how is making the gospel less clear helpful?? The original is quite plain. This revision (of the AOB) is deceptive and confusing."
I would argue that the refined FG position adds far more clarity to the Gospel.
The traditional position seldom states in concrete terms exactly what one must believe to be saved.
There is enormous confusion about errors that would disqualify a person from saving faith.
Sometimes one hears people saying that if one does not believe in the virgin birth, one cannot have been born again. Why? Those who suggest this never explain.
Traditionalists insist that belief in the deity of Christ is essential. But the deity of Christ is a concept that needs to be defined. I would suggest that a large proportion of evangelicals are Modalist heretics in their understanding. They are unable to clearly differentiate the members of the Trinity. Ask the average evangelical about the deity of Christ and the Trinity and I am pretty sure you will get a wobbly answer.
When it comes to the salvation of Roman Catholics, you often get an ambivalent answer from traditionalists.
Sometimes you hear traditionalists saying that some Roman Catholics are saved. But they never explain why some Catholics are supposedly saved but others are not.
The refined FG position provides a clear and concise defintition of saving faith (something which I simply have not seen from the other side). That is, that to receive eternal life, a person need only trust Jesus Christ for it.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Matthew:
ReplyDeleteI’ll leave it to Jan address most of your comments above since they are a reaction to some of her own.
I will make a few contributions here.
1) What you call, “Refined FG” theology is far more accurately described as Stephen Stark labeled the GES reductionist teaching as “REDEFINED FG” theology. For those of you who like more background on the importance of defining what is coming from GES as “REDEFINED FG” theology I suggest reading, Is “REDEFINED Free Grace Theology, Free Grace Theology?
2) You wrote, “The refined (REDEFINED) FG position provides a clear and concise defintition of saving faith...”
That is hard to reconcile when one of the most vocal and extremist followers of the GES’s Crossless & Deityless interpretation of the content of saving faith has published statements such as:
“If a JW hears me speak of Christ’s deity and asks me about it, I will say, ‘Let us agree to disagree about this subject…’ At the moment that a JW or a Mormon is convinced that Jesus Christ has given to them unrevokable (sic) eternal life when they believed on Him for it, I would consider such a one saved, REGARDLESS of their varied misconcetions (sic) and beliefs about Jesus.”
“Clear?”
“If I were talking to a Jew, he may very well ask me about the deity and humanity of Jesus. I would certainly entertain his questions and answer them to the best of my ability. But if such a one continued to express doubts or objections to this, I would say politely, ‘Let us for the time being put this issue on the back-burner. Can I show you from the Jewish Scriptures that the advent of Jesus Christ fulfills many prophecies’?”
“Clear?”
“John 6:47 ‘Most asssuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.’ There is no talk here about His death or resurrection, no talk about His deity. It is talk about entrusting one’s eternal well-being to Him. If you do that, regardless of the blindspots in your theology, you are eternally saved.”
“Blindspots?” “Clear?” When the writer refers to “blindspots,” he means the lost man does not have to know, understand or believe in who the one true Lord Jesus Christ, the “Son of God,” is or anything about what Jesus Christ did to provide salvation.
And finally, “The Mormon Jesus and the Evangelical Jesus are one and the same.”
“Clear and concise?” Indeed! Beyond any question: The egregious errors of the GES’s Crossless gospel is a clear and concise reductionist assault against the Person and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
LM
Hi Matthew-
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response. Your answer helps me a bit to see how it is you are thinking about these things. However, my thinking is significantly different, as you will see.
You bring in a lot of issues that I have not. I am not talking about the virgin birth. I am talking about the cross. I am not talking about Roman Catholics or Jehovah's Witnesses. I am talking about the cross. I am not talking about Modalist heresy. I am talking about the cross. I do not see how any of these other issues does anything to advance the matter of whether or not Jesus must be believed in via His cross work or else not at all.
As for the traditional position seldom stating in concrete terms what exactly must be believed, I actually think that the original version of the GES AOB does do a pretty good job of that:
Jesus Christ, God incarnate, paid the full penalty for man’s sin when He died on the cross of Calvary.
This is a nice, concise, succinct statement. I don't even need to break it down. You can see the components for yourself. BUT in the refined version this statement has been purged out. Refined FG has been refined of the cross.
You said,
“The refined FG position provides a clear and concise defintition [sic] of saving faith .... That is, that to receive eternal life, a person need only trust Jesus Christ for it.”
This is not a clear and concise definition of saving faith because the basis of trusting Jesus Christ for eternal life has been removed. That basis is clearly and concisely stated in the original GES statement quoted above- the one that no longer exists. The refined FG position has been refined (purged) of the basis of trusting Jesus Christ for eternal life, making that trust vacuous.
And now, just for fun and since you mentioned them, let's factor in all those other issues in the same purgative manner and see what kind of clear, concise gospel message we get:
In order to have eternal life you must trust in Jesus Christ, who 1) may or may not have been born of a virgin- doesn't matter; 2) may or may not be a member of a triune Godhead- doesn't matter; 3) may or may not be God at all- doesn't matter; 4) may or may not be accurately represented in Roman Catholic theology- doesn't matter; AND 5) may or may not have died on a cross for our sins- doesn't matter.....
If enough "theological baggage" of this sort is purged out, you will make what needs to be believed to gain eternal life so concise and “clear” it will be invisible!
JanH
Hello Matthew:
ReplyDeleteI hope you and Jan don't mind me joining in on the conversation. I am sincerely interested in learning how you arrived at the views you've shared in this thread; I hope you'll be willing to share this. I also have a few questions if you get the time:
You state: "I would argue that the refined FG position adds far more clarity to the Gospel."
First, don't you think Jesus' words in John 8:24 make it clear that acknowledging His Deity (I AM) is an essential to salvation truth? If not, why do you suppose He made the statement that those who would not believe He is I AM (see Exodus 3:14) would/will die in their sins? In your view, what other message could he have been communicating in John 8:24?
Second, let's say hypothetically that a Mormon places his trust SOLELY in the LDS "Jesus'" PROMISE to give eternal life to those who simply believe him for it. Can the LDS "Jesus" (spirit brother of Lucifer...one god among many gods) deliver eternal life? If your answer is no, then is it really
bringing “clarity” to the gospel of Jesus to NOT make His nature (which distiguishes Him from all the false "Jesus'" running the ladscapes these days) clearly understood to prospective believers?
Third, you state, "Traditionalists insist that belief in the deity of Christ is essential. But the deity of Christ is a concept that needs to be defined. I would suggest that a large proportion of evangelicals are Modalist heretics in their understanding."
Isn't Scripture's definition of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity adequate for anyone to understand? Why do you or anyone else need to define something which has already been defined by in Scripture? How do you define the "concept" of the Deity of Christ?
Here's where you and I find common ground: I agree with you there are some professing Christians who are modalist heretics in their understanding of the Trinity. This however in no way helps your argument that the Deity of Christ is not defined in Scripture, nor essential to salavtion.
You continue, "They are unable to clearly differentiate the members of the Trinity. Ask the average evangelical about the deity of Christ and the Trinity and I am pretty sure you will get a wobbly answer."
I, once again, agree with your assessment here Matthew. Nonetheless, it again does NOT help your argument that the nature of God is a non-essential. What it DOES DO though, is highlight the glaring lack of sound biblical evangelism and discipleship in the Church today. Tragic.
Lastly Matthew, have you ALWAYS believed it is non-essential-to-salvation to acknowledge the nature of Jesus (who He is--fully God, fully man)? Have you ALWAYS believed the same about His death and resurrection? If your answer is no to any or all of the above, would you mind sharing the circumstances/events/people etc...which/who changed your mind?
Thank you in advance for your time. I am sincerely interested in hearing your answers.
Jimmy
I would be very interested in Matthew's answers to Jimmy's (excellent) questions too.
ReplyDeleteJanH
Jan,
ReplyDelete"Jesus Christ, God incarnate, paid the full penalty for man’s sin when He died on the cross of Calvary."
'Paid the full penalty for man's sins' is not a scriptural expression. There are questions in my mind as to the appropriateness of taking about the atonement in terms of 'penalty.' Certainly, the atonement is substitutionary, but exactly how that should be understood is a matter for deeper consideration.
It seems odd to make an expression that is not scriptural central to your definition of saving faith.
I think it is worth considering the fact that many Roman Catholics would affirm this statement. You would then say that believing in justification by faith is not essential to salvation.
You seem to have removed the element of trust from saving faith.
The statement you have given is a mere factual statement about what Christ has done. One could believe that Christ had paid the full penalty for sin without trusting that He had redeemed or reconciled one'self.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Jimmy,
ReplyDelete"First, don't you think Jesus' words in John 8:24 make it clear that acknowledging His Deity (I AM) is an essential to salvation truth? If not, why do you suppose He made the statement that those who would not believe He is I AM (see Exodus 3:14) would/will die in their sins? In your view, what other message could he have been communicating in John 8:24?"
Our Lord is not setting out the content of saving faith. If we want to know what saving faith is, we need to look at passages where He promises salvation, not to a warning passage to a particular group of people.
Not everybody agrees that 'I am' in that passage refers to our Lord's deity. Probably it does, but the question is still open.
Secondly, does 'die in your sins' actually mean go into everlasting punishment? Surely there is the possibility that our Lord is referring to the temporal judgment that was coming upon the Jews.
Thirdly, this is a warning to people who were stubbornly resisting our Lord's ministry. Such a condition would only get worse if they continued to reject the light they had been given. Such characteristics would not characterise all unbelievers.
I don't think that verse in any way rules out the possibility of a person being redeemed while not believing in the deity of our Lord.
"Second, let's say hypothetically that a Mormon places his trust SOLELY in the LDS "Jesus'" PROMISE to give eternal life to those who simply believe him for it. Can the LDS "Jesus" (spirit brother of Lucifer...one god among many gods) deliver eternal life? If your answer is no, then is it really
bringing “clarity” to the gospel of Jesus to NOT make His nature (which distiguishes Him from all the false "Jesus'" running the ladscapes these days) clearly understood to prospective believers?"
Your notion of a 'different Jesus' is ontologically confused.
A person may hold misunderstandings about the identity of a person while still believing in the same person. For instance, I might be under the mistaken notion that Lou Martunaeac is an Australian, but I would still believing in the same Lou that wrote a book, administers a blog and advocates and uncompromising fundamental Baptist theology.
Mormons have many wrong ideas about Jesus. But they believe in Jesus of Nazareth, who was born of a virgin and who is spoken about in the four gospels.
"Lastly Matthew, have you ALWAYS believed it is non-essential-to-salvation to acknowledge the nature of Jesus (who He is--fully God, fully man)? Have you ALWAYS believed the same about His death and resurrection? If your answer is no to any or all of the above, would you mind sharing the circumstances/events/people etc...which/who changed your mind?"
I used to do street preaching in Worcester city centre and made it clear in my preaching that believing in the deity of Christ was essential. However, in the back of my mind was a question as to why it was essential. Nobody ever explained that to me.
I changed my mind on reading the excellent writings of Zane Hodges and the blogs of Antonio Da Rosa and HK Flynn.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Jan/Jimmy:
ReplyDeleteI am off for the day, but I want to make few comments befoe you addres what Mathew wrote.
1)He references Hodges, whi we are all aware is the originator of the Crossless gospel heresy.
2) He references Antonio da Rosa (aka: Sock Puppet: fg me).
Please click on the Sock Puppet link to an article that reveals just one example of is unethical pattern of behavior. Antonio has a reputation as the most ultra-combative, unethical and vitriolic man in the Christian blogosphere. He is not allowed to post here and banned from numerous Christian blogs partly because of his heresy, but mainly over gross lapses in ethical behavior, including his Sock Puppets plays and much worse.
However, my main reason for linking you there is to have you then link to the thread where he used his Sock Puppet- fg me. That is the thread where Rachel and I dealt with the “onotological” issues around Jesus Christ. That thread is- Evaluation & Response to “Crossless” Theology, Part 4.
3) Antonio is notorious for a host of anti-biblical beliefs and statements. Following is one that has direct bearing on what Matthew wrote. Da Rosa wrote, “The Mormon Jesus and Evangelical Jesus are One and the Same.”
Have a good weekend,
LM
Matthew, a caution to you. Do NOT, in any way, direct my guest to the blogs of Crossless gospel advocates. Please do not even reference da Rosa, aka- Sock Puppet: fg me.
Here is a sample of how Rachel dealt with the issue Matthew raised when da Rosa tried it.
ReplyDeleteSee: This Comment
Antonio, You asked, “Is it possible to have major misconceptions about the right person? If not, why is it impossible?” You ask a generic question, so the generic answer is "yes, it's possible". But from a generic standpoint, who is the "right person"? Let's get more specific then. Is it "possible" to have misconceptions about Jesus? Um... yes. The better question is, is it possible for someone to be born again while still holding to those misconceptions? Then my answer becomes, it depends on the misconceptions. As I stated earlier, Jesus has conditioned eternal life upon correct belief in Him. Therefore, while certain misconceptions are minor and would not prevent one from going to heaven, other misconceptions (namely, the ontological ones) are so significant that they prevent the individual from correct (i.e. saving) belief in Jesus.
Again, you are splitting hairs and trying to make your "Mormon Jesus" statement sound reasonable. Yes, in a historical sense the Mormons are referring to the same Jesus that orthodox Christians are. But their Jesus is NOT our Jesus because their Jesus, being a created being and non-deity, cannot and does not save. Thus, it is accurate when speaking in salvific terms, to say that the Mormon Jesus is a "different" Jesus. However, since your view is that a person can receive eternal life even if they think the giver of that eternal life is not God, then of course you would think that the Mormon Jesus is the same Jesus as the orthodox Christian Jesus. No one is saying that the Mormons are thinking of, say, Moses when they speak of Jesus. That is a straw man. We know they are referring to the same historical person we are. The point being made with the statement that "the Mormons believe in a different Jesus" is, again, that their "Jesus" is so ontologically different (namely, that he is not God) that he cannot save.
I've had this same discussion with Matthew on Lou's blog. The logical end of your arguments is that as long as the evangelist is speaking of the correct Jesus, then the lost person can have all kinds of misconceptions about Jesus (except that he is the giver of eternal life) and he will still be believing in the right Jesus. It is as if, as long as the evangelist has the right Jesus in mind, the lost person will be believing in the right person. This makes no sense. The lost person must himself understand and believe in the right Jesus in order to be born again.
Mathew,
ReplyDeleteI have just spent quite a bit of time composing a reply to you which I may yet post. However, for the time being I have one question for you-
Are you emergent or emergent influenced?
JanH
Jan
ReplyDelete"Are you emergent or emergent influenced?"
Wow! That question made me laugh.
What exactly is the Emergent movement?
There are a lot of Christians who are attacking something called the 'Emergent' movement.
I would question whether there is such a thing. I think 'Emergent' covers quite a broad range of different ideas. It is misleading to try to identify it as a clearly defined movement.
Going back to your question, the answer is NO.
I don't think I have been influenced by any individuals who are associated with the 'Emergent' tag.
I am solidly fundamentalist.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Lou
ReplyDelete"It is as if, as long as the evangelist has the right Jesus in mind, the lost person will be believing in the right person. This makes no sense. The lost person must himself understand and believe in the right Jesus in order to be born again."
Well, if you are talking about the Jesus in the Bible, presumably you are talking about the right Jesus.
Hello Matthew,
ReplyDeleteThank you for answering my questions. Having been at the office all day, I'm a bit worn out and eager to take a nap with my wife. I hope it's ok with you if I comment on them tomorrow.
One last thing in the interim:
How do you define the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Deity of Christ?
Thanks in advance,
Jimmy
According to the Athanasian creed:
ReplyDelete"Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all else, hold to the true Christian Faith.
Whoever does not keep this faith pure in all points will certainly perish forever.
Now this is the true Christian faith:
We worship one God in three persons and three persons in one God, without mixing the persons or dividing the divine being.
For each person -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -- is distinct, but the deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory and coeternal in majesty.
What the Father is, so is the Son, and so is the Holy Spirit.
The Father is uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated;
The Father is eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal;
Any yet they are not three who are eternal, but there is one who is eternal, just as they are not three who are uncreated, nor three who are infinite, but there is one who is uncreated and one who is infinite.
In the same way the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, and the Holy Spirit is almighty;
And yet they are not three who are almighty, but there is one who is almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God;
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord; yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.
For just as Christian truth compels us to confess each person individually to be God and Lord, so the true Christian faith forbids us to speak of three Gods or three Lords.
The Father is neither made not created, nor begotten of anyone.
The Son is neither made nor created, but is begotten of the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit is neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeds from the Father and the Son.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
And within this Trinity none comes before or after; none is greater or inferior, but all three persons are coequal and coeternal, so that in every way, as stated before, all three persons are to be worshiped as one God and one God worshiped as three persons.
Whoever wishes to be saved must have this conviction of the Trinity.
It is furthermore necessary for eternal salvation truly to believe that our Lord Jesus Christ also took on human flesh.
Now this is the true Christian faith:
We believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and Man.
He is God, eternally begotten from the nature of the Father, and he is man, born in time from the nature of his mother, fully God, fully man, with rational soul and human flesh, equal to the Father, as to his deity, less than the Father, as to his humanity;
and though he is both God and Man, Christ is not two persons but one, one, not by changing the deity into flesh, but by taking the humanity into God;
one, indeed, not by mixture of the natures, but by unity in one person;
for just as the reasonable soul and flesh are one human being, so God and man are one Christ.
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty, and from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
At his coming all people will rise again with their own bodies to answer for their personal deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life, but those who have done evil will go into everlasting fire.
This is the true Christian Faith.
Whoever does not faithfully and firmly believe this cannot be saved."
While I deny that believing this is essential to receivng eternal life, I insist that anything falling short of this is a denial of Christianity.
Matthew:
ReplyDeleteI’d rather you post your own personal beliefs apart from long creeds such as you posted above.
Furthermore, what we are discussing is the necessary content of saving faith. Crossless gospel advocates, such as yourself, insist the lost man be born again apart from knowing, understanding or believing in the Lord Jesus Christ (the “Son of God”) and what He did to provide salvation.
It is these extreme and egregious errors that we are discussing, which have been verified an affirmed from many of the teachings of Hodges/Wilkin and GES.
The current GES Affirmation of Belief also affirms this reductionist heresy.
LM
Jan/Jimmy/All:
ReplyDeleteI believe it is fair to advise that Matthew goes way beyond believing that lost can be born apart from knowing, understanding or believing in the deity of Christ, His substitutionary death and/or His resurrection.
He personally acknowledged at my blog, as some of the other Crossless gospel followers do, that they believe a lost man who openly and consciously denies the deity of Christ can still be born again.
They view a denial of the Lord’s deity as a mere “misconception” that does not hinder his being born again. In an evangelistic setting they take that “misconception” and ”put it on the back burner” and leave it there, because to the Crossless advocates rejecting the Lord’s deity is NO hindrance whatsoever to that lost man becoming a born again Christian.
They think conscious rejection of the deity of Christ is something to be addressed in a discipleship setting. But if he still clings to his rejection of the Lord’s deity he should be treated as an erring brother in Christ.
This is one of the extremes that flows from the Hodges, Wilkin, GES Crossless & Deityless gospel.
LM
Lou
ReplyDelete"I’d rather you post your own personal beliefs apart from long creeds such as you posted above."
I posted that because Jimmy wanted to know how I defined the deity of our Lord and the Triune God we believe in.
I believe that the Athanasian creed is such a glorious definition of these truths that I have no desire to make my own statement on the subject. I believe the best way for Christians to get to know the doctrine of the Trinity is to learn the Athanasian creed.
Matthew,
ReplyDelete(Warning- long post!)
I am glad to hear you are not emergent, though I do find it discomforting that you have some sympathy for them.
The reason I asked whether you are emergent is because of the way one particular comment of yours shows a certain acceptance of the deconstruction process used within that group. You said,
“There are questions in my mind as to the appropriateness of taking [sic] about the atonement in terms of 'penalty.' Certainly, the atonement is substitutionary, but exactly how that should be understood is a matter for deeper consideration.”
Now, I am sure you know enough about both postmodern thought and emergent theology to recognize the similitude. There are always “questions” in the minds of the emergent crowd, most of them about how God/Scripture/Kingdom/theology have been traditionally understood and whether we ought to continue to accept that understanding. It is this questioning that begins the deconstruction process. As for this particular issue of the atonement as penal, I personally find Ezekiel 18 to be very clear on the fact that sin has a penalty and that penalty is death. To sum up the whole chapter I will quote the end of verse 4 and the end of verse 18, “The soul that sins shall die.” And, “Behold, he shall die for his iniquity.” So that part is established clearly enough. Then there is Isaiah 53:5-6 where we are told, “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” So the penality of the atonement is established. I don't understand the basis for questioning the appropriateness of viewing the atonement as penal. You gave no elaboration on how “paying the full penalty for man's sins is not a scriptural expression” and it is certainly not immediately clear to me how it is not, especially in light of the verses I just sited, so I am completely lost as to your reasoning.
On the other hand, if you take something that is established, such as the traditional view of the atonement, and question it, in spite of Scriptures that are the basis for it's establishment, all you can do is deconstruct it. Deconstruct it. Remove it. Abandon it. Embrace another view. This is not refining. It is deconstructing the old and constructing something else in place of the old. The refining process removes and discards impurities from an essential product. By contrast, the deconstruction process removes and discards the essential product and replaces it with something else by the same identifying term/label. There are valid ways of questioning theological things. I am not saying people cannot ask questions. But not all questioning is valid. There are still the “has God indeed said...?” questions, being suggested by the same adversary who introduced the deconstructive thought process to man in the first place.
As for the emergent seeming aspect, the first part of your comment that I quoted is particularly disconcerting because of Brian McLaren's assault on the cross of Christ. I am sure you are aware that he has called the cross “false advertising for God” and “cosmic child abuse.” Here is a small selection from an interview he did for a podcast called “Bleeding Purple” hosted by Leif Hansen:
McLaren: This is, one of the huge problems is the traditional understanding of hell. Because if the cross is in line with Jesus’ teaching then—I won’t say, the only, and I certainly won’t say even the primary—but a primary meaning of the cross is that the kingdom of God doesn’t come like the kingdoms of the this world, by inflicting violence and coercing people. But that the kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing, voluntary sacrifice. But in an ironic way, the doctrine of hell basically says, no, that that’s not really true. That in the end, God gets His way through coercion and violence and intimidation and domination, just like every other kingdom does. The cross isn’t the center then. The cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God.
Hansen: Oh, Brian, that was just so beautifully said. I was tempted to get on my soap box there and you know—Because as you and I know there are so many illustrations and examples that you could give that show why the tradition view of hell completely falls in the face of—It’s just antithetical to the cross. But the way you put it there, I love that. It’s false advertising. And here, Jesus is saying, turn the other cheek. Love your enemy. Forgive seven times seventy. Return violence with self-sacrificial love. But if we believe the traditional view of hell, it’s like, well, do that for a short amount of time. Because eventually, God’s going to get them.
McLaren: Yeah. And I heard one well-known Christian leader, who—I won’t mention his name, just to protect his reputation. Cause some people would use this against him. But I heard him say it like this: The traditional understanding says that God asks of us something that God is incapable of Himself. God asks us to forgive people. But God is incapable of forgiving. God can’t forgive unless He punishes somebody in place of the person He was going to forgive. God doesn’t say things to you—Forgive your wife, and then go kick the dog to vent your anger. God asks you to actually forgive. And there’s a certain sense that, a common understanding of the atonement presents a God who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else.
So you can see, in light of this kind of thing, why I would be concerned with such a comment from you. The traditional view of the cross has been deconstructed to mean the exact opposite of what it really is.
I hope this is not what you had in mind by your comment. Some elaboration about your questioning the penality of the atonement and why you say it is not a scriptural expression would go a long way.
JanH
Hello Matthew,
ReplyDeleteJust now found the time to get back with you. Thanks for answering my latest question. I'll offer a few comments:
You state, "A person may hold misunderstandings about the identity of a person while still believing in the same person."
This is true to an extent, but with all due respect your statement dodges the issue at hand IMO. And what is that issue? Believing someone (Jesus) FOR something (eternal life). For instance, and hypothetically, Joe is a person whom I can confirm exists. I know he is a school teacher, and incidentally I've heard through the neighborhood grapevine he's a lifeguard also. One hot summer day Joe and I go to the river to fish. Ten minutes into our fishing I decide to go for a swim to the other side and back in order to cool myself off. The current looks fairly swift, but I remind myself that if I get into any trouble whatsoever, Joe will be there to save me ...afterall... I've heard from some pretty reputable people he is a lifeguard. The unthinkable happens. Midway across the current starts to take me under. I yell out to Joe in my moment of terror, "Joe, I'm drowning! Please save me!" Imagine my surprise and shock when Joe responds, "Jimmy, I can't swim!"
I was believing Joe FOR the saving of my life. Unfortunately, I was mistaken about one of Joe's abilities/attributes--namely his inability to swim. My misunderstanding about what Joe could and couldn't do cost me dearly.
You continue, "For instance, I might be under the mistaken notion that Lou Martunaeac is an Australian, but I would still believing in the same Lou that wrote a book, administers a blog and advocates and uncompromising fundamental Baptist theology."
Dodging the issue again IMO. In your analogy, you're not believing in Lou FOR anything, so it matters not how much you are mistaken about Lou, or that you're mistaken at all. If however you were believing in Lou to, say, come out with a book about his days growing up in Austrailia...and had pre-paid a large sum of money to him in order to obtain an autograghed 1st copy...you'd end up terribly disappointed..especially if he decided to keep the money (I know you wouldn't do that Lou:-)
And here's the point Matthew. Believing somone FOR something he/she has no ability to deliver on has consequences...especially if what you're believing for is eternal life.
At this point, you will undoubtedly repeat, "Yea, but Jesus CAN and WILl deliver eternal life to those who believe in Him for it...irregardless the misconceptions they have of Him".
In the coming days, I'd like to share with you the scriptures that will hopefully help you to see where...with all due respect, I feel you've departed from God's Word. Whether I do this or not depends on your answer to the following question: If I can prove to you FROM SCRIPTURE that eternal life is conditioned upon sole trust in Jesus' finished work (death, resurrection, and therefore inferred Deity) will you believe it?
In His Service,
Jimmy
Jan,
ReplyDelete"Now, I am sure you know enough about both postmodern thought and emergent theology to recognize the similitude. There are always “questions” in the minds of the emergent crowd, most of them about how God/Scripture/Kingdom/theology have been traditionally understood and whether we ought to continue to accept that understanding. It is this questioning that begins the deconstruction process."
Are you saying that only Emergent people ask questions about doctrine?
It almost seems like you are saying that everybody except the Emergent people are 100% certain about the doctrines they believe.
Some of the Emergent people reject penal atonement outright. There is really no question in their minds.
Some of the Emergent people take a kind of postmodern relatvistic approach to Biblical truth. I reject utterly such an approach.
Holding to the Inerrancy of Scripture is compatible with a Berean attitude that demands to know whether the Scriptures really do teach the things they are taught. We have to search the Scriptures until we are satisfied that our doctrine is correct.
I think a lot of Evangelicals have never gone through that process with penal atonement.
Their pastor tells them that Christ bore the wrath of God and they assume that is true without ever looking to see if the Bible actually teaches that.
When they look at what the Bible says about the cross, they read it through penal tinted spectacles.
We have to take off those spectacles and consider whether penal language really is the best approach to the cross.
I would recommend a book entitled 'Four Views on the Atonement' edited by James Beilby and Paul R Eddy. It presents four essays offering different views on the nature of the atonement.
"On the other hand, if you take something that is established, such as the traditional view of the atonement, and question it, in spite of Scriptures that are the basis for it's establishment, all you can do is deconstruct it. Deconstruct it."
I am not deconstructing anything. I reject all postmodern methodologies.
I am simply suggesting that we question whether Evangelicals have given the best understanding of the atonement.
You speak of penal atonement as 'traditional.'
How much theology have you actually read?
Are you unaware that the early church fathers did not teach penal atonement? Are you aware that the Eastern Orthodox church has never taught it and the Roman Catholic church has not consistently held to it. There is a question about whether Martin Luther held to penal atonement, or whether he actually held the Christus Victor view (that Christ suffered the wrath of Satan). Some Arminians hold to the Governmental view of atonement.
When you say that penal atonement is traditional, what you mean is that it is traditional among Evangelicals.
To reject penal atonement (and I have not necessarilly done so) is not necessarilly to become Emergent (we have only been talking about Emergent people in the last five years) but to adopt some of the other models of atonement that have been held throughout church history.
"Then there is Isaiah 53:5-6 where we are told, “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” So the penality of the atonement is established. I don't understand the basis for questioning the appropriateness of viewing the atonement as penal. You gave no elaboration on how “paying the full penalty for man's sins is not a scriptural expression” and it is certainly not immediately clear to me how it is not, especially in light of the verses I just sited, so I am completely lost as to your reasoning."
I am not sure this is the place for an in-depth debate about penal atonement, but I will say a few things about isaiah 53.
Firstly, we need to keep in mind that Isaiah 53 is not the only text in Scripture that deals with the atonement. A model of atonement must consider all of the different metaphors and analogies that we find in the Word of God as to the cross.
It is possible that some of the language of Isaiah 53 was specific to Israel and her circumstances. While there are universal elements within Isaiah 53 (as Phillip attested to the Ethiopian eunuch), as a chapter it must be considered within its context of God's dealings with Israel.
Isaiah 53 presents the messiah:
1. Suffering in the place of Israel (and the sinner in general).
2. Suffering the consequences of sin.
3. Providing healing and redemption for sin.
4. Suffering according to the will of God.
However, we must be careful about finding in it the notions that Christ suffered the wrath of God.
It is also significant that Isaiah 53 makes no connection between the atonement and Satan. Many New Testament texts make such a connection. We cannot have a fully-orbed doctrine of atonement without consideration of how the atonement is connected to the defeat of the Devil.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Jimmy
ReplyDelete"Whether I do this or not depends on your answer to the following question: If I can prove to you FROM SCRIPTURE that eternal life is conditioned upon sole trust in Jesus' finished work (death, resurrection, and therefore inferred Deity) will you believe it?"
What a thoroughly patronizing question.
I understand your reasons for asking it. But I can't help thinking it is not a polite question.
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate you addressing the question I asked you on the penal atonement there are other things that I can see are simply part of the package of dealing with you that I am not willing to endure any longer. I will gratuitously answered the strange accusation you make on who I say asks doctrinal questions or has doctrinal certainty, but I am certainly not going to waste my time answering every cockamamie accusation you have already attempted to saddle me with or would attempt to saddle me with in the future. Really, Matthew, someone should tell you, and it may as well be me, that that particular practice of yours is insulting and offensive. Not to mention uncharitable and manipulative.
I know my post was rather long and that is perhaps why you thought I was some how suggesting that emergent were the only people who ask questions. You must have missed when I said,
"There are valid ways of questioning theological things. I am not saying people cannot ask questions. But not all questioning is valid. There are still the “has God indeed said...?” questions, being suggested by the same adversary who introduced the deconstructive thought process to man in the first place."
That is the most gracious thing I can think to say, even though I don't believe for a minute that you did miss it.
But more to the point, you said,
"I am not sure this is the place for an in-depth debate about penal atonement"
All right. If you don't care to debate the point even though you brought it up, that's fine. There is quite a lot that I am itching to say, especially about Isaiah 53 somehow being irrelevant to everyone else because it was said to Israel or that it somehow isn't showing the atonement as penal because there are other atonement passages besides that one, but it does seem to be a fruitless venture with you. I have lost any taste for dealing with you anyway.
And incidentally,
"How much theology have you actually read?"
Wow. What a thoroughly patronizing question.
JanH
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteWhat has hardened your heart so? I could have never imagined you receiving my question the way you did.
Whether you meant to or not, you've reduced my sincere and heartfelt question to a patronization of your intellect.
If you desire to have further discussion with me, I'd respectfully ask you to think less about yourself and your wounded pride, and more about the topic at hand.
My question stands.
Jimmy
From my last comment, my sentence reading "will gratuitously answered" should say "will gratuitously answer."
ReplyDeleteCut and paste has its limits, alas.
JanH
Hey Lou,
ReplyDeleteHave you banned Matthew from commenting, or am I to assume he's hiding under a desk somewhere? I'm sorry Matthew, that was my lame attempt at a little humor.
On a serious note, I just read 2 Corinthians 11:4 and wondered how Matthew might respond to the Apostle Paul's usage of the phrase "another Jesus". What do you think Jan/Lou, can you hear Matthew enlightening the Apostle Paul in the following manner: "Well, in reality brother Paul, ONTOLOGICALLY speaking there is no such thing as 'another Jesus'. So, I think you'll agree..uh..sir, there really is no point in you using that phrase."
Blessings in Christ,
Jimmy
Jimmy:
ReplyDeleteI have not banned Matthew. It is very common for Crossless advocates to duck out of sight when their arguments, as they always are, have been biblically thwarted.
They have been seared in their conscience and once the GES mantra arguments, which is all they have, are devastated they have nothing left and so depart the discussion post-haste.
More tomorrow.
LM
Jimmy/All:
ReplyDeleteI want to link you to an article in which the “obvious meaning” of the FGA’s Covenant was clarified.
Dr. Charlie Bing Affirms the Meaning of the FGA Covenant
LM
Jimmy:
ReplyDeleteOne more note, which I mentioned elsewhere.
Matthew is among those in the Crossless & Deityless camp that insist a lost man who openly and consciously rejects the deity of Jesus Christ can still be born again. They think belief in a promise from whomever kind of man he wants to think Jesus is, is enough to be born again.
This incredible heresy that has its roots in the teaching of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin is why some refer to the Crossless gospel as the Promise-ONLY gospel.
This is just one of those alleged theories of Crossless gospel men that Rose protects under her claim that the Crossless gospel is a, “doctrinal nuance... a difference of opinion that is acceptable.”
Another one of Rose’s Crossless gospel blog partners, whose teaching she supports as legitimate, says lost men can be saved, no matter what misconception or unbelief he may have about who Jesus is and what He (Jesus) did to provide salvation.
All of these things are part and parcel of the GES Affirmation of Belief.
Thankfully, these egregious errors are primarily contained to within the small cell of theological extremists in the GES and its sympathizers
We must never tire from standing watch over the flock of God to protect unsuspecting believers from the deceptive and corruptive teachings of the GES extremists, especially their Crossless gospel.
I wrote an article titled, Perverse Things Draw Away Disciples to address the need to protect the body of Christ from the GES’s Crossless gospel.
LM
Lou,
ReplyDeleteAs for the link you provided on Bing, I heartily agree with you that no GES person could in good conscience remain or become an FGA member in light of the FGA Covenant.
You state, "Matthew is among those in the Crossless & Deityless camp that insist a lost man who openly and consciously rejects the deity of Jesus Christ can still be born again. They think belief in a promise from whomever kind of man he wants to think Jesus is, is enough to be born again."
You mentioned this before. It's heretical enough to say one need not have a knowledge of Christ's Deity in order to be saved, but to say one can outright deny His deity and become saved leaves me speechless.
I hope you understand I see clearly that Matthew and others who hold Crossless views are herestics of the first order. My motivation in conversing with Matthew was to a) understand how he came to embrace these heresies b) hear from the "horses mouth" so to speak what he believes, and c) provide him Scripture in the hopes of retreiving him from the false gospel which has ensnared him, and will likely ensnare those whom he influences.
Regarding my last post: The GES's (and therefore Matthew's) view that one can have misconceptions (or no knowledge at all) about the PERSON and WORK of Jesus Christ in redemption, but that one need only believe a man named Jesus for eternal life, is easily dispelled by the Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 11:4 (and other places). In essence, these heretics are calling the Holy Spirit a liar when He tells us through Paul that there are other "Jesus's" (false Jesus's).
In short, the Holy Spirit was warning us through Paul about people JUST LIKE MATTHEW AND THE REST OF THE GES CROWD....people who would present another Jesus as the true Saviour.
Jimmy
P.S. Enjoyed your article "Perverse things..."
Jimmy:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. You have been a help and blessing in these discussions.
Glad you found the Perverse Things Draw Away Disciples helpful. It was written to address the need to protect the body of Christ from the GES’s Crossless gospel.
Lou
On a serious note, I just read 2 Corinthians 11:4 and wondered how Matthew might respond to the Apostle Paul's usage of the phrase "another Jesus".
ReplyDeleteThat's a good question, Jimmy. I wonder how they would define “another Jesus.” They have pretty much removed all the pieces that would help them do that, I think.
and c) provide him Scripture in the hopes of retreiving him from the false gospel which has ensnared him, and will likely ensnare those whom he influences.
And we saw what he did with the Scriptures. I am sure if the Bible said “water is wet” he would have found a way to rationalize saying the Bible really meant water is not wet. (Or maybe it was only wet for the Israelites.) Then we would find ourselves attempting to argue that not only is water actually indeed wet, but the Bible actually tells us that water is actually indeed wet.
I see now that arguing with Matthew is a losing proposition, not because we are wrong and can't make our case, but because when you have to try to get someone to see that water is wet, well......
JanH
Jan:
ReplyDeleteI have been dealing with the teachings of the Crossless gospel advocates for over two years. I have come to conclude that many of its advocates have been seared in their conscience.
What you find from the followers of the Crossless gospel is a consistent pattern of:
1) Ignoring or negating any Scripture that does not support their Crossless & Deityless gospel or,
2) Forcing into or extracting from the Bible whatever they must to float their reductionist assaults on the content of saving faith.
One such example is how the GES gospel advocates strip the Lord’s titles, “the Christ” & “Son of God” of their deity.
Greg Schliesmann wrote an excellent two-part series addressing this assault on the Lord’s deity, which is IMO is one of the most egregious errors that was originated by the late Zane Hodges. You can read both by beginning with The “Christ” Under Siege.
Lou
Hello Jan,
ReplyDeleteI've been meaning to tell you I think you did a wonderful job of trying to reason with Matthew.
I do agree with you though that "arguing with Matthew is a losing proposition, not because we are wrong and can't make our case, but because when you have to try to get someone to see that water is wet, well......"
Very well stated.
Blessings sister,
Jimmy
I don't understand what you are talking about. Why are you attacking these GES people? If you do not believe in Jesus then who do you believe? The Bible says to believe in Jesus. It does not say believe in a Cross. . . at least I don't think it does. I never saw that in the Bible but it says Believe in Jesus a whole bunch of times, especially in John. That is the book that got me saved.
ReplyDeleteWhere in the Bible does is say a person has to place their faith in a Cross? I was saved by placing my faith in Christ for eternal life. John 3:16 says, For God so loved the world that He gave is only begotten Son, that whosover believeth in HIM has everlasting life." It says that we believe in HIM, not in the Cross. I think the GES statement is true.
That is exactly what both of the GES statements says. I think the 2nd statement is clearer and more to the point. If you don't believe in that statement, then I think they are right and you are wrong.
BTW - Who is GES? They look pretty solid by their doctrinal statement.
If you don't believe that a person is saved by believing in Jesus then you are not believe what the Bible says in the Gospel of John! I don't think I ever heard anyone preach about believing in a Cross! That is just a piece of wood! Are you Catholics or something? They make a big deal out of the cross too but I don't think they believe in Jesus for everlasting life. They believe they have to do works too. Do you believe in Jesus?
- Dwayne
John 3:16
Dwayne:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the concern you expressed here. Your story is not unlike mine when I first began to read GES material over 10 years ago. At first look it appears sound. Some of the most dangerous errors are, however, very subtle. It was not until further digging into the teachings of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin on their reductionist interpretation of the saving message that I understood these men had gone into gross error.
BTW, I am not attacking “these GES people” I am contending for the faith once delivered (Jude 3) from the Crossless gospel and marking those who propagate it. I follow the biblical principles in Rom. 16:17-18.
I understand how, “believe in Jesus” should be taken at face value and appears sound. You must, however, understand that the GES insists that a lost man does not have to know whom Jesus is (His deity) or believe that He died for their sins and rose from the dead, but can still be born again. The GES teaches that you need only believe in the name Jesus, even if you do not know who He is, or only believe in the promise of eternal life apart from knowing whom Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation. That is one of the reasons why their view is called the Crossless and/or Promise-ONLY gospel.
FWIW, there was a time, long ago, that the GES men were much more doctrinally sound than they are now.
Now, I am going to ask you to do some additional reading. There are dozens of articles at this blog on the GES Crossless gospel written by a variety of men who have done the research on GES teaching and in the case of Tom Stegall was once a member of GES. Following are links to just a few articles you should read if you truly want to understand just how far askew the Scriptures GES has fallen in its interpretation of the Gospel. You are going to have to commit yourself to do the reading of these Scripture based articles that address the documented views of the GES men.
May I suggest you begin by reading through the multi-part series of brief excerpts from Tom’s Stegall’s book, The Gospel of the Christ. The opening link below takes you to the first and there is a link at the end of each to the next in the series.
Yours faithfully,
LM
The Gospel of the Christ: A Biblical Response to the “Crossless” Gospel…
Zane Hodges: Drifting Far Off the Marker
The “Christ” Under Siege
The “Christ” Under Siege: The New Assault From the Grace Evangelical Society
Believing the Gospel, “May Indeed Frustrate God’s Grace?”
The Hollow “Gospel” of the GES