March 16, 2009

Out on a Limb to Protest too Much

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

This is Brother Phillip Evans’s continuation of a discussion he began with Crossless gospel advocate Antonio da Rosa. The discussion did not go far because da Rosa suddenly quit the discussion when he was pressed (by Kev) to provide honest answers to simple unvarnished questions. Antonio also immediately closed and deleted the thread in which the discussion was underway.

On Wednesday (3/11/09) da Rosa followed by deleting the article in its entirety. His charges that he had been “
misrepresented” were, of course, indefensible as it was irrefutably demonstrated to him, which may the reason he had to delete the article and thread in its entirety. In any event, the deleted thread was archived prior to it’s being buried. Phillip, therefore, was ready to continue the discussion. What follows is a continuation of the deleted discussion.

Thursday, March 05, 2009, on the heretical blog, Unashamed of Grace, Antonio da Rosa responded to my defense of Lou Martuneac and the question that I posted there to him concerning the Gospel. I will answer each of his statements here, as he has shut down that comment thread at his blog before I able to post my reply to him. I’d like to thank my friend and brother in Christ, Lou Martuneac, for the opportunity to respond to Antonio directly, here from his blog In Defense of the Gospel.

Antonio said:
Phillip, I expected you to see my point. Lou’s title takes my quote out of context. My quote in context states that the evangelist may frustrate the grace of God, not the lost man! In his title, he makes it seem that I believe that the lost believing the death, deity, and resurrection may frustrate the grace of God. THIS IS INDEED A MISREPRESENTATION. My point is about the EVANGELIST and NOT THE LOST MAN!”
Antonio, I believe you may be out on a limb to protest too much about this – for two reasons:

1. Lou quoted you
in context near the top of the article. (Believing the Gospel: “May Indeed Frustrate Grace?”) Therefore, any reasonable person can look at your quote and freely compare it with the title, and then draw their own conclusions. The title does not exist in a vacuum. Lou was not trying to hide anything. The title and the quote are both right there in plain sight and in close proximity. Therefore, I see no deliberate attempt to take you out of context. Usually, when people try to do that to others, they use at least some camouflage. The title, therefore, must be taken for what it is: a very brief way of introducing the article, even if you do not see it as laser perfect as you’d like it to be. Your real concern should be with the content of Lou’s article.

You are like the hunter who prefers to swat at a mosquito instead of shooting at the charging lion. Or the one who strains at a gnat and swallows a camel.

Will you retract your claim to have been misrepresented if Lou changes the title of his article to:
Requiring the Lost to Believe the Gospel as Defined by 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, “May Indeed Frustrate God’s Grace?”

2. Don’t forget, the authentic evangelist who preaches the Gospel also
believes it. The evangelist knows that the Gospel requires belief in Christ for eternal life as the One who is God in the flesh, who died on the cross and rose from dead. Since this same evangelist preaches the message that he does as a result of his belief, does not his belief in the Gospel, therefore “frustrate grace” in your view?

Antonio, I had written to you:
“Perhaps you could answer this question to help clear things up:

Can a lost person be saved while maintaining a denial of the Deity of Christ, His death on the cross for our sins, and resurrection?’
Apparently you are either fearful or unable to answer my question clearly and simply in your own words, after which we could both appeal to Scripture to justify our positions. Instead, you prefer to hide behind numerous Scripture passages you’ve fashioned into a cloak via your misuse of them. This is right out of the cultists’ handbook of tactics.

I will now address your quotations of Scripture that you used as a reply to my question above. You said,
“Let us let the Bible answer that:”

1 John 5:1
“Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God”

Matt 16:16
“Simon Peter answered and said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’”
You observed, “moments later...
Matt 16:21-23
“From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.


Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, ‘Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!’

But He turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.'”

You said, “Peter confessed that Jesus was the Christ and believed at the same time that Jesus would not die or be resurrected”.
All, but the most spiritually obtuse, should clearly see your twisting of Scripture here. First and foremost, you fail to understand that the content of saving faith (COSF) at that time is not the same as it is now. The Old Testament (prior to the cross and resurrection) saints did not have the clear picture that we have now. Much was revealed to them, but much was also hidden from them. Peter’s rebuke of the Lord (Matt. 16: 21-23) is not a denial of something that was already accomplished fact at that time, but was rather his attempt to prevent the Lord’s plans from being carried out.

Secondly, you fail to point out that at least by the time of
Matthew 16:16, Peter was a saved man. He had been saved by believing what had been revealed to him by the Father up to that point, by believing in Jesus as the *Son of God, the One whom the Father had sent into the world as the promised Messiah. Peter’s verbal chastening of the Lord is a post-salvation event! To take that event and use it to manufacture a doctrine which teaches that a lost person could now (after all that has been revealed to us in Scripture) maintain a denial of the truth of Christ’s cross and resurrection and be saved in that denial, is nothing short of demonic.
This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him,” (John 2:11).
You said, “The disciples were saved here. Later we read of them:”

I agree that at John 2:11 those believers were saved.
“So the men marveled, saying, ‘Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him,’” (Matt 8:27).

Philip said to Him, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.’
Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say’, ‘Show us the Father’
?” (John 14:8-9)
You said, “The disciples believed in Jesus (pisteow eis) and later just didn’t get that Jesus was God. They were saved in spite of their disbelief that Jesus was God.”

Excuse me Antonio, they were not “
saved in spite of their disbelief that Jesus was God.” They had become saved (born again) Old Testament saints prior to the cross and resurrection of Christ by believing to the best of their limited understanding what Jesus had taught them about who He was and what He came into this world to do. This was not a case of them denying the truth that we have so clearly revealed to us today by New Testament Scripture. This example of your twisting of Scripture to bolster your reductionist view is similar to what you did concerning the account in Matthew 16.
Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe,” (Mark 16:9-11).
You said, “Although the disciples had been told many times by Jesus about His death and resurrection, they disbelieved it.”

Here we have yet
another example of the same type of Scripture twisting as you did to Matthew 16.

People reading these things from you are beginning to recognize your methods. Those disciples had
already been saved prior to the cross and resurrection! When Jesus was prophesying to His disciples things that would later occur, the disciples certainly did not respond with a heart of unbelief! Otherwise, Jesus could not have told them, “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you,” (John 15:3). Instead, they did not fully understand the things Jesus told them due to their dullness of heart, as He pointed out to them while He was with them.

Their sorrow from having literally walked with Jesus, loved Him, and seen Him crucified clouded their minds so that at
Mark 16: 9-11 these already saved people refused to believe that Christ had risen from the dead. The faith of these saved people was shaken severely, as was Thomas’, but upon seeing the risen Christ they believed. The lost should heed the words of Jesus: “blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed,” (John 20:29b).

Please continue to Part 2 of this series


*Son of God” The teaching of Hodges is that the Lord’s title, “Son of God” does NOT mean or infer His deity. See- The “Christ” Under Siege: The New Assault from the Grace Evangelical Society

Editor’s Note: As you read the examples above in which Phillip documents then refutes da Rosa’s egregious errors and abuse of Scripture you might wonder whether these extreme views coming from him are an accurate representation of GES doctrine. Consider this: Antonio da Rosa is a featured workshop speaker at the 2009 GES National Conference. He was a speaker at a 2007 GES Regional Conference. If GES Executive Director, Bob Wilkin, had any genuine concerns with the reductionist extremism of da Rosa why would he feature him (da Rosa) at the GES National Conference? My point is this: When you read the extremist views coming from da Rosa, you are reading what is the accepted position of the GES.

Brother Evans is author of The Hollow “Gospel” of the Grace Evangelical Society

He also authored the book, Eternal Security Proved.

9 comments:

  1. RE: "Out on a Limb...."
    Specifically, Antonio's use of Peter's rebuke of the Lord as a defense for the GES cross less, content less "saving" faith.

    Such foolishness hardly rates a serious answer, except that so many are in danger of being miss-led. Phillip's answer is right on. Peter did not deny the Jesus as the Messiah,but only reveled his ignorance of a still future event in His accomplishment of His mission and work. This attempted separation of Messiah from the great work He came to do, Jesus rightly labeled as originating with Satan. In Peter it was ignorance which can be overcome (and was), in Satan it is intentional, and cannot be overcome. To insist that saving faith today is in Christ as separated from, in isolation from, His finished work, historically accomplished and reliably reported by the Gospel, is in the same vein as Satan's temporary deception of Peter and Peter's rebuke of the Lord. Heb.2:1-3 gives urgent and adequate warning to all such!

    To make Peter's rebuke episode a pattern of minimum saving faith for today is saying that, because Peter was ignorant of future events necessary to salvation (and yet was saved),we can remain ignorant of past events necessary to salvation (or deny their necessity) and still be saved. Obviously, a blatant impossibility.


    It appears that the GES "gospel" and the LS "gospel" are two sides of the same counterfeit coin. Both deny Christ's finished/perfect cross work as vindicated by His resurrection, the one by reducing it as un-necessary, the other by adding to it as insufficient. But of the two LS, it seems to me,to be the most dangerous, as it is more subtle, harder to recognize and more widespread.

    These errors always seem to come in offsetting pairs. It is one of Satan's devices to try to throw God's children off balance. Jesus said "My sheep hear My voice..." in His Word, and not these stranger's voices.

    Thank you for the clear exposure of such error, for the encouragement of knowing He has spoken to your hearts in much the same way as He has mine concerning these things. In Him, Tim V.P.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It appears that the GES "gospel" and the LS "gospel" are two sides of the same counterfeit coin. Both deny Christ's finished/perfect cross work as vindicated by His resurrection, the one by reducing it as un-necessary, the other by adding to it as insufficient. But of the two LS, it seems to me,to be the most dangerous, as it is more subtle, harder to recognize and more widespread.

    Tim,

    I have been noticing something very similar myself. I am putting it through the mental sifting process at present.

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tim:

    I appreciate your encouraging remarks, this being your first time posting. What I really appreciate is that you have made a penetrating and important contribution to the discussion of the twin errors of Lordship Salvation and the Crossless Gospel.

    You wrote, “It appears that the GES "gospel" and the LS "gospel" are two sides of the same counterfeit coin. Both deny Christ's finished/perfect cross work as vindicated by His resurrection, the one by reducing it as un-necessary, the other by adding to it as insufficient. But of the two LS, it seems to me to be the most dangerous, as it is more subtle, harder to recognize and more widespread.”

    Right on target with your observation. I like the way you verbalized it the way you did, I may have to pay you a copycat fee.

    The revised and expanded edition of my book, IDOTG is complete. Once I receive the final two endorsements it goes back to the publisher. In this new edition I have added two sections that address the GES’s reductionist assault on the content of saving faith.

    I want readers to understand that the GES is wrong and realize GES is an extreme fringe element in the Lordship debate. Anyway, I am seriously considering adding your brief paragraph above to one of those sections. I’ll e-mail you to discuss it.

    You should read this comment that I posted in the previous thread. You will appreciate how it compliments your recognition of the twin errors.

    You are also correct in that the errors are typically hard to detect. LS is, more than the Crossless gospel, couched in orthodox terms. The extremism of the GES’s Crossless is stark. Nevertheless, we must be vigilant in exposing and refuting it so that not one more unsuspecting believer falls prey to GES’s reductionist heresy.

    Thanks again for the excellent observations.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  4. Do you know why it is that they seem to be two sides of the same coin?

    I think it has something to do with the fact that they both betray Dispensational soteriology. They each seek to present pre-cross/pre-pentecost experiences as the gospel we are to preach and believe. Someone whose name I have forgotten (Bob, I think) over at the UoG blog was attempting to engage AdR on this point but AdR ended the discussion without addressing it.

    So then the one party (LS) ends up in the Galatian law based error while the other (CG) ends up as lawless antinomian. This is what I have been attempting to think my way through. This is as far as I've gotten, though.

    It sounds maybe like Tim has gotten things together better and.... perhaps could be persuaded to maybe elaborate on his thoughts?

    Hmm? :)

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Jan,

    You wrote, “So then the one party (LS) ends up in the Galatian law based error while the other (CG) ends up as lawless antinomian. This is what I have been attempting to think my way through.”

    Interesting concept and I like how Tim raised the level of awareness.

    You also wrote, “Someone whose name I have forgotten (Bob, I think)...was attempting to engage AdR on this point but AdR ended the discussion without addressing it.

    Really? He did not address a legitimate question?


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  6. You also wrote, “Someone whose name I have forgotten (Bob, I think)...was attempting to engage AdR on this point but AdR ended the discussion without addressing it.”

    Really? He did not address a legitimate question?


    I know! Imagine that!

    He did indeed end the discussion at that point. Bob's (?) question was the last comment on the thread before it was shut down.

    He had tried to get AdR on that issue a few times in the thread, but to no avail. A answered by referring to a greek phrase, as if that settled things. He kept telling Bob that he needed to study that phrase. I can't remember what the phrase was but to me it seemed beside the point. Bob was trying to get A past the cross (sequentially) but A wouldn't go there.

    (I hope that guy's name was Bob.)

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lou,

    Please try to invite those guys (daRosa's group) to defend their positions here in your blog. I think if you be fair to them then we all be be able to learn a lot from fair interactions. Whereas one sided attacks on those who don't defend their position does not seem to be educating.

    Thanks
    Lu Mo Nyet

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Lu:

    Thanks for stopping by and posting the comment/question. It is 1:30am here, so I will be brief now, but give you more later on. Be sure to check back for that; OK?

    For now let me share with you that for well over a year the advocates of the Crossless gospel were invited to comment and defend their positions here and did so often. Those articles, with their comments still exist and our interactions with them are still visible. Here is one sample, More later.

    False Paradigms of the “Crossless” Gospel, Part 1

    About six months ago I decided to change the role and ministry of my blog. I no longer wanted it to be a place for open debate on the Crossless gospel for various reasons, such as:

    1) We had repeatedly debated and thoroughly from the Scriptures devastated the GES reductionist heresy.

    2) The behavior of some, especially Antonio da Rosa became so combative and unethical I had to ban him and several others for their methods and behavior.

    3) My blog has scores of articles and discussions of the twin errors of Lordship Salvation and the Crossless Gospel. It has become a place of resources for people on both sides of the debates and for those in the middle. I allow people to comment after I check the content of what they want to post. Your question is welcome and I’m glad you asked.

    Now to an example of why I hold for moderation all comments first and have banned people like Antonio da Rosa.

    I am linking you the following article to show you a reason why I no longer allow men like da Rosa to participate at my blog.

    Evaluation & Response to “Crossless” Theology, Part 4

    You will notice comments by an “Anonymous” person. He signs off as FG ME. That "Anonymous" person signing of as Fg Me was in fact Antonio da Rosa posing as another person defending the position of Antonio. This is called using a Sock Puppet. You can read about this at Sock Puppet: Antonio da Rosa.

    In Sept. 2007 Antonio da Rosa used a false identity to spread a rumor at this blog about another brother in Christ so heinous that I do not want to post it here at this time.

    I trust you now understand why I will NOT let Antonio da Rosa participate at this blog. Furthermore, da Rosa has posted many of his own articles and it is these articles that we read and review.

    Seriously, the bad behavior of da Rosa is so rampant and wide-spread at blogs that I half wonder if you are not him posing as another person. He has a long track record of that very kind of behavior.

    Finally, please understand that here we do not allow personal attacks. We expose and attack false doctrine to warn and protect the body of Christ.

    Well, I wrote much more than I planned to, but I wanted to give background information. I’ll try to have more for you tomorrow.

    Yours in His service,


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  9. To All:

    Part 2 of this series will be posted on Monday morning. Here is a sample:

    Excuse me again (Antonio), but while you may tell the lost of the cross and resurrection, by failing to tell them that they must believe it in order to be saved, you certainly do not preach the cross and resurrection! And your claim to the label “Free Grace” is sad, for God’s free grace is found in the truth of the Gospel, which you twist and abuse to prop up the reductionist heresy of the Crossless Gospel!

    To my brothers and sisters in Christ: Hold strong to your faith and the truth of the Gospel. There are others in the GES like Wilkin and da Rosa. Names to be familiar with like: Rene Lopez, Bob Bryant and John Niemelä out there propagating their various redefinitions of the Word of Truth. Don’t be beguiled by them, for they themselves have been deceived by Satan. Instead, pray for their recovery, but steer a clear path away from and “avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).

    ReplyDelete