Grace in Focus (Nov-Dec 2008) Review
The November/December 2008 issue of Grace in Focus has two articles promoting the Grace Evangelical Society’s crossless/reductionist gospel.
The first article is by Bob Wilkin entitled “Essential Truths About Our Savior.” Bob begins his article with the premise:
“There is a difference Biblically between what we must believe to be born again and what the Savior had to be and do in order for us to be born again. The Bible distinguishes between these two. However, some who profess to believe in Free Grace deny this, saying that any essential truth about who Jesus is and what He did must be believed to be born again. These people limit the essentials about the Person and work of Christ—arbitrarily—to three points: Jesus’ deity, His death on the cross for our sins, and His bodily resurrection from the dead.”Wilkin goes on to build his straw man, by listing other “essential truths” about the Savior such as, all the attributes of the Godhead; Elijah coming as a Forerunner; Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem; etc. Wilkin states that there are literally hundreds of essential truths regarding the Savior. His straw man argument is: why arbitrarily chose three from this list of hundreds of essentials? The fact that the Holy Spirit chose those three essentials in 1 Corinthians 15 seems to be lost on Dr. Wilkin.
The second article is by John Niemela entitled “Who Is Able To Guarantee Everlasting Life?” John begins with:
“John’s Gospel presents Jesus as the Messianic Son of God who was crucified and resurrected to guarantee everlasting life to all believers.”Then he uses “pre-cross” snippets of Jesus’ earthly ministry as an example for how we should present the gospel. In the past, Dr. Niemela has declared that the purpose statement of John’s Gospel is:
“These have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”And at the outset of this article, Dr. Niemela outlines John’s Gospel presentation which includes Jesus’ Deity, death, burial and resurrection. If that’s the case, then why on earth would we use only snippets of Jesus’ pre-cross ministry rather than John’s actual presentation as found in his Gospel which includes the same essentials that Paul outlines in 1 Corinthians. 15?
It seems like Dr. Niemela cannot see his own disconnect!
Bob Nyberg
Thanks to Brother Bob Nyberg who notified me that the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) just published these two articles. To date these articles, which appear in GES’s Grace in Focus, have not appeared on line. The review above was prepared by Brother Nyberg at my request.
Thanks to Brother Bob Nyberg who notified me that the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) just published these two articles. To date these articles, which appear in GES’s Grace in Focus, have not appeared on line. The review above was prepared by Brother Nyberg at my request.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why people would go to such lengths to get around the necessity of teaching a biblical presentation of the Gospel.
ReplyDeleteAs always, I appreciate your heart for the truth.
Gordon:
ReplyDeleteThe only reason I can offer is that they do not believe it is necessary for the lost to know, understand or believe the Gospel, which they have made clear over the years.
Then of course GES insists there is no specific message, called "the Gospel," that the lost must believe to be born again. See The Technical meaning of the term, "THE GOSPEL."
LM
Hi Lou,
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it be wonderful if these articles just didn't get posted at all.
How many times will we have to point out the obvious in response to the ramblings of these men.
Oh that the sheep would believe they are actually seated in heavenly places IN Christ Jesus and would take that seriously and de-throne the men who speak such junk. We have a heavenly calling, a heavenly position and yes a heavenly responsibility. I would be joy to my heart if we'd take them all seriously.
Kev
Kev:
ReplyDeleteIf the GES men were to be recovered from the heresy of reductionist teaching they would not be posting articles such as these.
However, as long as they write these articles we will meet their ideas head on to protect others from falling into the trap of the Crossless/Deityless gospel.
IMO, this allegiance to an obvious departure from Scripture is inspired by a devotion to the personality of Zane Hodges.
LM
I agree Lou, the whole "movement" seems to focus around the... exultation of Zane Hodges.
ReplyDeleteKev
Kev:
ReplyDeleteWe need look no further than what one of his followers wrote last year. The article on how they are proud to be Hodges’s “godchildren.”
Then their comments about how God raised up Hodges to finally make clear what God’s plan of salvation is, as if no one in the NT church ever had it right until Hodges revealed it to the church. Absurd! This is borderline worship and showing all the signs of a cult movement built around a personality.
Nevertheless, Our goal is to keep others advised and protected from the heresy that originated with Hodges and is being perpetuated by men like Bob Wilkin and John Niemelä.
IMO, they have been effectively isolated and contained in their own shrinking cell of theological extremists and the few who want to legitimize the Crossless gospel heresy as minor “difference of opinion that is acceptable.”
I spent many hours searching the Internet looking for any site or blog where advocates of the GES reductionist gospel were posting. Where ever I found them posting their Crossless heresy I would post notes to advise and warn about GES heresy and who they are to be marked and avoided (Rom. 16:17-18)
I did quite a bit at the *Sharper Iron blog to sound the alarm throng a series of articles. Antonio (aka- Sock Puppet: fg me) entered SI and tried to run interference for the Crossless gospel. He was promptly banned once SI admins saw that he is antagonistic toward Fundamentalism and a heretic of the first order as evidenced by his absurd teaching such as, The Mormon Jesus and Evangelical Jesus are One and the Same.
Antonio is a stark example of just how extreme and out of touch with Scripture one can become if he/she begins to embrace the heretical views that Hodges has introduced to the body of Christ. I am hopeful he can one day be recovered and in the meantime others see him and recognize the danger of what one can become who thinks the Crossless gospel is mere “theory,” and/or a “nuance of doctrine.”
IMO, it is highly unlikely that Hodges. Wilkin, GES will ever be able to deceive any significant number of believers now that what the GES teaches is fully exposed.
These articles by Wilkin and Niemelä are so out of touch that any objective Bible believing Christian can now discern the obvious reductionist heresy that is coming from GES.
LM
*Samples of SI articles I posted at SI to advise and warn:
The Crossless Gospel at the Crossroads
GES Controversial Teaching
Major Development on Hodges’s Crossless Gospel
I do not see that I said anything objectionable in that post.
ReplyDeleteIn many countries, evangelical believers are regarded as 'cults.'
That you consider Free Gracers to be 'cultish' is of no concern to me.
Your own argument fails based on the quote you used.
ReplyDeleteQuote:
“These have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”
"that believing"
That believing what? Believing everything written in the Gospel? That's not what it says. It says...
"that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing [that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God] you may have life in His name"
It seems like you can't see your own disconnect.
Matthew:
ReplyDeleteWelcome back, sort of.
First, I want my readers to know that you were the author of the article that indicated you and a few others in the GES are proud to be the “godchildren” of Zane Hodges. You are among the group that think not until Hodges came up with his reductionist teaching that the NT church did not fully understand the saving message.
Second, It does not matter whether or not you are concerned about the cultish qualities of Hodges followers. You are one of them and need to be the object of prayerful recovery efforts. In the meantime men who have posted views such as you have need to be marked and avoided (Rom. 16:17-18) lest the unsuspecting be swept up into the same heresies you have been caught up in.
The followers of Hodges do exhibit an almost slavish devotion to Hodges no matter what kind of heresies originate from him or are spun from his teachings. The punitive Judgment Seat of Christ being just one example being spun outside the heretical Crossless gospel. You have posted at the pro-Crossless gospel blog Unashamed on behalf of Joey Faust’s Millennial Exclusion, which made even Rose, your blog partner, squirm just a little.
Third, we need to make sure that a broad cross section of evangelical Christianity understands the GES is no longer representative of true Free Grace theology. Under the direction of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin the GES has become what is best defined as REDEFINED Free Grace. The term “REDEFINED” Free Grace, was coined by Stephen Stark and it is completely accurate.
Redefined Free Grace (the GES) and its theological extremists, is a shrinking cell of extremists that have lost any relevance to the debate against Lordship Salvation. The GES- Hodges have Drifted Far Off the Marker.
LM
Wolaboga:
ReplyDeleteI'll let Brother Nyberg address your concern.
However, are you aware that GES insists the Lord's titles, “the Christ” and “Son of God” do not mean or infer His deity?
See-
The “Christ” Under Siege
Heresy of the “Crossless” Gospel Verified & Affirmed!
LM
Lou, I applaud your committed readership of our blog.
ReplyDeleteYou might like to become a public follower of the blog.
I do disagree with Zane Hodges on a number of points. I would not describe myself as a slavish follower of the man, as great as he is. I am not like one of those Mormons that end every discussion with "I believe that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God."
"Redefined Free Grace (the GES) and its theological extremists, is a shrinking cell of extremists that have lost any relevance to the debate against Lordship Salvation."
Leave the USA and you might find yourself regarded as being among a shrinking cell of extremists.
Its never a good idea to make too much of what the mass of professing Christians, or even professing evangelicals and fundamentalists believe. The PLymouth Brehren back in the 19th century had to stand against the mass of evangelicals who were warped by some of the worst tendnencies of Reformed theology.
It is sad that most evangelicals are not willing to put any reflection into soteriology. On the whole, both traditionalist and Refined FG opponents of Lordship Salvation seemed to find themselves isolated and no longer considered relevant by the mainstream of evangelicalism and fundamentalism.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Wolaboga, Lou raises an important point.
ReplyDeleteYou might want to do some word studies on the terms 'Christ' and 'Son of God' and consider whether they always imply deity.
God Bless
Matthew
Mathew:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply.
Allow me to revise fro earlier. I wrote, "The followers of Hodges do exhibit an almost slavish devotion to Hodges no matter what kind of heresies originate from him or are spun from his teachings."
I would revise as follows: "The followers of Hodges do exhibit an almost slavish devotion to Hodges virtually no matter what kind of heresies originate from him or are spun from his teachings."
The ONLY reason I read the pro-Crossless gospel blogs like Unashamed, FGT, GES blog and Rose's Reasonings is to stay abreast of any new or continuing development in the radical teaching coming from Hodges, Wilkin and their followers. I visit each 1-3 times daily. This way I can alert and advice others as need be.
In any event, the REDEFINED reductionist teaching coming from GES will be identified and biblically resisted anytime and anywhere it might appear.
LM
Just a friendly caution Matthew.
ReplyDeleteDo NOT link to any articles that teach or support the teaching of Hodges or Wilkin, including their assaulting the Person of Christ by stripping the Lord's titles of their Deity.
LM
Lou, I would not do that. I know you object to people posting links to sites in your comment box. I respect your rules.
ReplyDeleteI think links in comments are a touchy subject. I have posted them in other peoples' blogs, but I understand the desire to be in control of links that are appearing on the blog. It does not do for one's blog to be a connection to all kinds of crazy stuff.
Just out of interest, is there a difference between heresy and wrong doctrine?
ReplyDeleteThank you, and any further discussion of the GES stripping the Lord's titles of their Deity can be taken up in Greg Schliesmann's article The "Christ" Under Siege, that I linked to above.
ReplyDeleteLM
...is there a difference between heresy and wrong doctrine?
ReplyDeleteYou're drifting. Go to the blog where you read, "wrong doctrine" if you want to address that nuance.
LM
Well, you do use the word 'heresy' a lot and I was just wondering if you defined the term or what you would actually include within that category.
ReplyDeleteMatthew:
ReplyDeleteI'm taking the last word on this.
In this thread I purposely used the word heresy more often than usual to make sure no one misunderstands that the Crossless gospel is without any question totally out of touch with Scriptures and in the opinion of many ANTI-biblical.
LM
Hi All,
ReplyDeleteThe argument over John 20:31 is really man-made. The Text is not vague at all.
Even the casual reader will see that the Apostle uses two titles for the Person he says believing in will result in Eternal Life.
Both of these titles are well defined in John's Gospel, and the remainder of Scripture.
Christ, the Messiah, God's Anointed One for the purpose of carrying out The Gospel.
The Son of God, Deity, the Second Person of the Trinity.
If I told you how long an airplane was, what type of engines it had, and all the things it can do, and then I said that believing it was a 747 you would be able to fly in it... would you divorce the title "747" from what the title means? Absolutely not. Such would be silly in the aviation world. Such is dangerous and foolish in the handling of Scripture.
Listen to the Lord in John 17:3 as He explains what this Eternal Life is and declares Himself God.
You are not saved because you say you believe a title that means nothing.
You are saved if you believe that Jesus died for our sins (specificly yours) in accordance with the Scriptures. That He was buried and rose again on the third day according to prophecy. And that He was seen alive in the flesh afterward.
John 20:31 attests this in the titles you are required to believe.
Notice the Apostle says these things are written so that you believe He is the One who is named by these titles. The titles themselves are not the issue. Who He is, is the issue.
Kev
Kev:
ReplyDeleteYou write, "Notice the Apostle says these things are written so that you believe He is the One who is named by these titles. The titles themselves are not the issue. Who He is, is the issue."
And there is one of the most egregious errors with the GES's Crossless/Deityless gospel.
They teach that the lost do not have to be aware of, know, understand or believe in who Jesus (His deity) is or what He did to provide salvation, but can still be born again.
Reductionist, non-saving heresy!
LM
I've been thinking about the idea of titles.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to say believe that Jack is the Nord De Vis, and you took me at my word about it, would you then know Jack?
I'd say you don't know Jack.
(I really didn't plan that to work out that way... but since it works I'm not going to change it. LOL sorry if any are offended)
Unless we know what or who the Nord De Vis is it is meaningless to us.
Note to readers, I made up the title "Nord De Vis" so don't google it, please. It may actually mean something.. and in realm of the internet it may mean something all together unpleasant.
Kev
Kevl: If I were to say believe that Jack is the Nord De Vis, and you took me at my word about it, would you then know Jack?
ReplyDeleteI'd say you don't know Jack."
Looker: Well, I would say that I know that Jack is the Nord De Vis. If I didn't know it before you informed me, then now I would know something new. If knowing that Jack is the Nord De Vis is the only condition for something, then the condition has been fulfilled.
Kevl: Unless we know what or who the Nord De Vis is it is meaningless to us.
Looker: It is not meaningless to anyone if that simple bit of knowledge is all that is required. In such is the case, it has great meaning.
I don't see that this thought exercise offers any obvious solution to the debate concerning how much knowledge is required.
Looker,
ReplyDeleteScripture defines Eternal Life as "knowing" the One who is God and Christ named Jesus. John 17:3
Clearly knowing someone holds a title doesn't indicate knowing the person. Surely not to the level that ginōskō indicates in John 17:3.
Further, as I have said above John's statement in John 20:31 doesn't say that believing Jesus has a title will save, it says that all of this information was provided so that we would believe He IS the Christ. And that believing that that we will be saved.
Can one believe that Jesus is "The Christ" without the information of what The Christ means? Then surely John has gone overboard and confused the Evangelistic Message hasn't he.
I mean.. one might even accuse him of some of the things we read on some Crossless Blogs about those of us who believe we should preach the same Gospel that the Apostles did.
Surely if one were only required to "believe Jesus for eternal life" that is what John would have written in his evangelical letter.
Kev