Last week the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) Executive Council announced its Open Break from the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) and its Crossless/Promise ONLY gospel.
Late last evening I received a copy of an Open Letter from FGA President Dr. Fred Lybrand to FGA President elect, Dr. Fred Chay.
The Open Letter will be available shortly for download, in its entirety (37 pages) at the Fred Lybrand blog and here at IDOTG. Here are selected excerpts for your consideration.
“It is my deepest hope that GES will repent of its recent error and return to the Free Grace Movement. Perhaps there is a future discussion to be had, and I remain hopeful; however, I want it to be abundantly clear that the GES Gospel, in its current iteration, is not something I can endorse as legitimate or supportable from the Word of God.”There is much more that sheds light from an insider’s perspective on some previously unknown issues in and surrounding the debate within the Free Grace movement. Things that clearly define why GES is not representative of historic Free Grace theology. Things that define how GES has steadily drifted from a biblically balanced view of the Gospel of Jesus Christ thorough reductionist thinking
“The Free Grace Movement did not start with GES, though it could end with it. If we leave the mainstream and follow the sincere, but misguided thinking of recent years, we will no longer be a Movement, but will rather star in the inevitable last act of fading away as a Monument.”
“The GES Gospel is a change in the very definition of the Gospel of Grace that violates our own FGA Covenant when it states,
‘Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.’
I was there when we formed these words together, knowing that the death and resurrection of the Savior was clearly among our concerns. I also know that it was Larry Moyer’s counsel to us that also contributed to this emphasis. In any event, believing in the finished work of Christ clearly is not the same as the GES Gospel’s notion of the gospel being nothing except ‘believing that He can guarantee one’s eternal life’. As the GES Gospel advocates point out—Jesus made this promise before He died, which means He made the promise before His work was finished. To believe the GES Gospel is to deny the Classical Free Grace understanding of the gospel through which we are eternally saved.”
Following are the opening paragraphs from the Open Letter.
Dear Dr. Chay,
Fred, at your request I am finally, and reluctantly, addressing the issue concerning the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) and the ‘crossless gospel’, so called. I say ‘so called’ because I would name it the GES Gospel. I am not aware of it being held by anyone, anywhere, in history; it is solely owned and promoted by GES. Of course, I am sure that when most GES folks present the gospel, they include a mention of Christ’s death and resurrection. However, when one asks, “What must one believe to be saved?” --- Then the cross and resurrection are clearly unnecessary pieces of information for saving faith and eternal salvation in the GES Gospel view. And as any objective person can see, eventually this line of thinking will invade their presentation of the saving message.The Open Letter from FGA President Dr. Fred Lybrand to FGA President elect, Dr. Fred Chay is available for download below.
I am aware that you attended a meeting involving a number of folks to attempt to look at the text surrounding (especially) GES and its novel view of the Gospel by which we are eternally saved. I am very thankful that you were invited to attend the meeting, since as you know, in the past we have offered to sponsor such collegial and academic discussions to no avail. It is my deepest hope that GES will repent of its recent error and return to the Free Grace Movement. Perhaps there is a future discussion to be had, and I remain hopeful; however, I want it to be abundantly clear that the GES Gospel, in its current iteration, is not something I can endorse as legitimate or supportable from the Word of God.
I’m sure they might take exception as to whether or not they have left the Movement, but the fact is that GES is no longer mainstream (if it ever was) regarding those who have been patently ‘free grace’ throughout history. In particular, traditional and mainstream Free Grace leaders such as Dr. Chafer, Dr. Ryrie, and Dr. Radmacher are all in print as affirming the necessity of faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross regarding one’s deliverance from eternal damnation. My suspicion is that many folks involved with the Grace Evangelical Society are simply unaware (as was I) that profound doctrinal shifts in the organization have occurred since 1999, culminating in sweeping doctrinal changes in their Statement (August 2005) and the recent attacks (the Hydra-headed article and the review of JB Hixson’s book) against those who disagree with the GES reformulation of The Gospel of Grace. (links added)
Bible-believing Christians all across evangelical Christianity can be thankful for men who are coming forward to clarify the crux of the doctrinal controversy.
Lord willing the advocates of the GES “Crossless” gospel can recovered from and repent of the errors they currently propagate. While we wait the Gospel of Grace will go forward in truth and in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Yours faithfully,
LM
Visit the Fred Lybrand blog to view the on-going discussion there.
DOWNLOAD HERE:
For the MS Word version download: The GES Gospel (aka - the ‘Crossless’ or ‘Promise-only’ Gospel)
For the PDF format download: The GES Gospel (aka - the ‘Crossless’ or ‘Promise-only’ Gospel)
Hi Lou,
ReplyDeleteI've also posted about this at my blog.
Kev
That is great Kev!
ReplyDeleteDr. Lybrand wants his Open Letter spread far and wide so that the GES is recognized as an entirely separate entity apart from the historic Free Grace movement from this point forward.
Lou
I wanted to comment more, but I'm just plain out of time today. :)
ReplyDeleteWill try to catch up tomorrow.
Kev
To All:
ReplyDeleteI am still reading and perusing the Open Letter by Fred Lybrand.
One especially compelling section is where you will read details of Lybrand’s personal interaction with Hodges in 2008. Although Hodges was highly reluctant to speak candidly to Lybrand he was able to, “…establish the fact that Zane fully stood by his articles on ‘How to Lead People to Christ’ (JOTGES, Fall 2000, and Spring 2001).”
Lybrand continues, “I have had a number of individuals say to me that Zane really didn’t mean…(fill in the blank here)…but, in fact, he did. Zane meant exactly what he said in the articles, and he meant exactly what he implied as well, as my notes above (which he confirmed) insist.”
By all means, download and read Lybrand’s letter. GES has essentially been rendered irrelevant, whether they know it or not.
We will, however, always stand ready to resist any attempts by GES to spread the Crossless gospel beyond its deeply isolated group of reductionist extremists.
LM
Hey Gents,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the conversation...any questions I can address?
Dear Dr. Lybrand:
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me thank you for producing and releasing this paper for the general Christian community.
IMO, your letter and last week’s FGA statement on GES have done a great deal of good to insulate non-GES Free Grace believers from any perception of alignment with GES and its Crossless/Promise Only message.
Thank you,
LM
Dr. Lybrand:
ReplyDeleteUntil recently there were a number of GES Gospel people on the board and in the membership of FGA.
In your paper you stated, “Of course, the FGA has NEVER had a relationship with GES.” (bold yours)
In the next section you noted how Dr. Charlie Bing (“in his memo to the FGA Executive Council on 10 June 2008”) clarified the FGA Covenant’s Affirmation #3. He also showed how the GES Gospel was/is inconsistent with the FGA Covenant on the content of saving faith.
In the July 2008 FGA e-mail newsletter Dr. Bing wrote an article. The following appears in regard to the FGA Covenant, Affirmation #3,
“I think it speaks for itself about the content of what must be believed for a person to be saved. Since this is not a peripheral issue, there is a strong feeling among the FGA Executive Council that we affirm the necessity of believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for salvation. That is the message we want to work together to advance in the world.”
That clarifying statement effectively ended the speculation over whether or not an advocate of the GES Gospel could, in good conscience, sign agreement with the FGA Covenant, Affirmation #3.
It was clear in everyone’s mind that those people hold to views that were/are antithetical to the FGA’s Covenant, Affirmation #3.
Question #1Why, in your opinion, were GES Gospel people so interested in joining the FGA and then highly resistant to resigning from the FGA when, knowing the “obvious meaning” of Affirmation #3, they could not in good conscience agree with it?
Question #2Presently, are there any advocates of the GES “Crossless - Promise ONLY” gospel still in the membership of the FGA?
LM
Hey Lou,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the question(s). In all honesty, as we have worked on our own understanding of the issues surrounding the GES Gospel, most of us didn't exactly realize where everyone was on the issue (I'm going back in time here). Indeed, it wasn't an issue because of our friendships (and in particular, our friendship with Zane).
Basically, we all read Zane's material with reflective respect...but we didn't read it carefully. We have all experienced Zane's insights as helpful and profound in earlier years, which tends to build trust. It also, however, made many of us careless.
I say all of this to get to the point that much of this issue simply wasn't on the radar as the FGA was getting off the ground.
Dr. Bing did a fine job of leading us toward real clarity and unity together.
The resistance to leaving is that as we've all 'grown up' together in Free Grace circles, it is simply near impossible to admit what has happened. Most of us have tended to think Zane or Bob don't really mean what they are saying...so we tend to say (as with politics), "He was misunderstood or he misspoke." That isn't what is really up...what is up is that there has been a drift from Free Grace Principles into something that isn't any longer a part of what it means to be Free Grace. We've seen this sort of thing when Hyper Calvinist don't support gospel preaching (evangelism)...or...When disciples of Watchmen Nee go too far in their understanding of the local church (kind of an only one true church per city approach).
At any rate, I think most folks have thought they were operating in 'good conscience' because they really hadn't sorted through the issues. Of course, the more the merrier in the FGA...but, each of us really must sort out our own understanding if we are going to pitch in together.
As to Question #2: I have no knowledge of who is a GES Gospel advocate, and who also belongs to the FGA. I won't be a part of a seek-and-destroy process, which I think is perfectly antithetical to living graciously. In my experience, this will sort itself out now that we've made it clear where we stand. If it doesn't sort itself out, know that we are working on procedures to challenge one's membership (as is stated in our bylaws and covenant). The FGA, in part is also creating a context for some accountability, but that needs to occur in a gracious and kind, but truthful way. Hope this helps.
FRL
Fred:
ReplyDeleteWhat a fine and caring answer. I will respond more later today. I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your candor.
Lou
Greetings Fred and Lou. I've been working my way through the document most of the day, taking some time to absorb it, and one of the first things that stood out to me was the following set of statements since they reflect so well my own conclusions and frustrations so long ago.
ReplyDelete"That in their estimation, anyone who believes differently from GES is not a part of the Free Grace movement."
"However, if your view excludes or denies legitimacy to those who have been the leaders in the movement, then your view is historically invalid (of course, a new movement can start, but it must break with the old one)."
"I didn’t leave GES, GES left me."
The chain of logic confirms what Lou has said since... as long as I can remember... "who moved?"
I also appreciate very much reading your e-mail exchange with Zane as it clearly shows that Zane himself says "If you want clarity on my view, I can't do better than these articles". Contrary to what some have tried to portray posthumously, Zane himself considered those articles, by themselves, to clearly represent his view.
Fred, I think you've done an amazing job of telling the truth in love and it's apparent that you didn't reach these conclusions lightly nor without some personal struggle and loss due to the long established relationships. As Lou said, "What a fine and caring answer."
Thanks Stephen...
ReplyDeleteI want to confirm what you said. None of my conclusions came from adopting anyone else's view... it is my own study and reflection on the issue and God's Word.
Interestingly, Zane really was the first one to introduce me convincingly to the importance of the evaluation of our lives as Christians before the Lord at the Bema (1 Cor 5; Rom 14)...which is chief among my driving motives in releasing this letter.
God bless,
FRL
Brother Fred,
ReplyDeleteThank you for making this letter open. As I commented at my blog I believe this document to be a significant contribution to Christendom for our time.
I'm inclined to suggest a new confession of faith be written. Possibly the 2009 Grace Confession. I am not normally interested in redoing things that have already been done. I for one find the Bible a perfectly acceptable "confession." However, I do recognize the benefits of leveling the playing field and stating things plainly and openly.
I have just a couple of questions for you.
First, I applied for FGA membership in the summer of 2007, late August I believe. Are the four weeks the processing was supposed to take up yet? LOL! I have inquired a few times but have never received an answer to my application. :) Hey since I have your attention I might as well ask what's really on my mind right?
OK in more seriousness. Your letter was very well written. However, though you brought up the Gospel of the Kingdom you didn't seem to finish the topic. Was it outside of your purpose to articulate that the good news of the Kingdom was not a salvation message? I understand it may not have been on point with the confusion of the GES Gospel (good term BTW) but I wonder if there was more to it than that.
Brother, I am so very thankful for your explanation. Being of a dispensational view, and clearly aligned with the Classic Free Grace position I must confess that I was very impatient with the FGA. It did not dawn on me that things were playing out as you explain. It is perfectly reasonable that you (and many others) did not see the implications of what Zane was putting forward. I want to personally and as publicly as I am able apologize to you right now.
Brother Fred, I am sorry that I was not only privately impatient but publicly so. I allowed my narrow view of events to give excuse for my calling into question the motives and discernment of the leadership of the FGA. It should not have been so.
There is much more I wish to discuss about your letter but I believe I should leave this post stand as it is now.
Thank you again for sharing this. My confidence is greatly increased.
Kev
Brother Fred,
ReplyDeleteI would like to echo Stephen's appreciate of reading your email exchange with Zane.
When I read your statement that this was the last communication it was chilling. I'm so sorry for Zane that he didn't finish as well as he could have. Yet as you gracefully noted, we can be thankful for the ministry he had when he was running well.
Kev
Hi Dr. Lybrand-
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking this stand against the GES Gospel. It certainly could not have been easy or fun to do. However, this will stand as a testimony and example for future men of God- showing both what to do and how to do it. There have been far too many times in church history where the ball was dropped on a doctrinal issue and we still suffer the consequences today. Thank you for taking the obedient route instead of the easy, expedient route. You have no doubt spared the church a good deal of leavening.
And I loved the "faith-alone-in-John-alone" description. Very apropos.
JanH
All,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kind words, and apologies (but, since I'm a bit innocent of that part of the discussion, I have no reason to forgive...nice that Christ paid for everything!).
I do appreciate that you all have a our perspective in place now...I have many friends who have written with the same grief concerning Zane...especially as they clarify their own convictions over the devotion to a dear, dear friend.
One point I'd like to mention concerns the Kingdom (as Kev referenced). I do see the Kingdom as especially concerned with the future in the Millennium. It creates it's own challenges as Christ is addressing much as Israel's Messiah.
My real reason for mentioning it is that the GES Gospel supporters feel they have a significant argument supporting John's Gospel in that John didn't provide 'commentary' to clarify that Paul requires more than Jesus did as to content to believe.
I was simply giving a point for their reflection and our protection...the same kind of commentary should be in the Synoptic Gospels as well...but of course, this is an imaginary argument---it is not what any of the Gospel writers were up to or concerned with.
In fact, I think you just about have to have an assumption that the GES Gospel is true in order to postulate such an argument.
At any rate, that was the thinking behind that quick mention.
Hope that helps...and, again...thanks for all your kind words. We'll see what the Lord does.
FRL
P.S. I'll ponder the 2009 statement idea :-)
Also, we have fixed the FGA joining process (I think)...please come along and join us at
ReplyDeletewww.freegracealliance.com
...so sorry for the computer issues back then!
FRL
Fred, I fully appreciate that you came to these conclusions on your own. You indicate in your letter that 1 Cor 1:16-24 was a "most compelling passage" and I agree.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was first exposed to and considered the merit of GES' gospel this passage was a major factor in convincing me to stay the orthodox course. I have other reasons as well, but this passage was a biggie and I'm thankful to read that you found it to be a powerful passage as well... 100+ times. ;-)
To All:
ReplyDeleteThe last two weeks have brought watershed events in the debate over the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) Crossless and/or Promise-ONLY gospel.
Last week we had the FGA Announce an Open Break from the GES and its “Crossless” Gospel.Then, of course we have Dr. Fred Lybrand’s Open Letter: The GES Gospel: aka- The Crossless or Promise Only Gospel.The GES reductionist message presents many ripe and legitimate targets for the Lordship Salvation camp. The GES has been a hindrance to effectively resisting the errors of Lordship Salvation. A hindrance that is swiftly being removed.
The FGA announcement on GES and Fred Lybrand’s Open Letter have done a great deal to awaken a great many believers within and beyond Free Grace borders that the GES is an isolated, aberrant fringe element in the evangelical community.
With the FGA Official Announcement on GES and Fred Lybrand’s Open Letter coming out in quick succession I believe GES is just now beginning to realize they have become thoroughly irrelevant and marginalized. The GES men have no real or credible voice in the New Testament church. I am hopeful they are now beginning to figure that out.
The GES is irrelevant! As long as it exists, however, it is a theologically dangerous, although rapidly shrinking cell of reductionist extremists.
I’d like nothing more than to see the GES dissolved entirely. Even so, it might be good to have a trace element of GES around. This way we can warn others by GES’s own example what are the most egregious forms of reductionist errors ever introduced to the New Testament church by one of its own.
By pointing to persons like Antonio da Rosa we can warn the unsuspecting, show and demonstrate (from da Rosa’s examples) what they will become if they fall into the trap of Zane Hodges’s Crossless gospel.
We are hopeful the advocates of and sympathizers with the GES Gospel can be recovered from the reductionist errors that were originated by the late Zane Hodges.
We are hopeful that GES leaders such as: Bob Wilkin, John Niemelä and Bob Bryant will one day come back to a biblically balanced view of the Gospel and genuinely repent of what they have introduced to the New Testament church.
While we watch and pray for their recovery and repentance we will proclaim the Gospel to every creature and do what we can to hinder the GES from spreading their Crossless, Promise ONLY message beyond its own borders.
LM
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteTo be clear---I love these guys in GES...and my greatest hope is that they will reconsidered their view. It hurt me deeply to realize that they have left the Free Grace Movement.
Frankly, 'we wrestle not against flesh and blood...' I know the Enemy has fun with the chaos these moments present. However, he overplays his hand regularly. He will here too.
I'm hoping for even more grace, but not less truth, from everyone.
God bless,
FRL
Hi Fred,
ReplyDeleteIt was this tone in your letter that I noted, and commented to Lou about immediately. Your tone of restoration, and respect is why I was willing to promote it to the people who read my blog so strongly.
I do have a couple of additional questions for you but I've just not been able to write them out yet. Will do soonest though.
Kev
Fred:
ReplyDeleteYou, of course have had a very close relationship with some of the GES men. We appreciate how difficult this has been for you. We do, however, applaud your conscience and convictions in this matter.
Others are not so willing to put fidelity to the Lord and His Word ahead of friends and/or fellowships.
I did pick up on this note, “I know the Enemy has fun with the chaos these moments present.”
It reminded me of a new addition to my book. This is an excerpt from a longer portion.
*“The Crossless gospel and Lordship Salvation are two sides of the same counterfeit coin…. These doctrinal errors seem to always come in offsetting pairs. It is one of the Devil’s devices, which has the effect of throwing God’s children off balance in their understanding of the one true gospel of Jesus Christ.”
God bless you,
Lou
*A friend shared a thought with me on this theme. I revised and expanded it and with permission incorporated it into the new edition of IDOTG.
Brother Lybrand,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your recent open letter concerning FGA's formal and open break with GES.
Like you, I've prayed for the recovery of those ensnared by their current doctrine which denies the necessity of the lost to believe the sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection of Christ Jesus, in order to be saved.
I would rejoice to see their recovery, and would in no way belittle them or say "ah ha!" to those so repenting. I would recognize that their repentance would open a door of opportunity to be a powerful witness of the grace of God.
God bless you,
Phil
Fred, my thoughts are that this obviously isn't your first rodeo and you've handled yourself with grace, truth, and understanding so far. I have a great deal of confidence in your demonstrated ability to continue wisely.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you Fred and am praying that your participation, here and elsewhere, will bear spiritual fruit.
Hey All,
ReplyDeleteBeing new to this blogging idea, I'm discovering that I've stepped into tangential controversies...so, it seems easiest for me to address my Open Letter on the GES Gospel (and other things) at my own site.
I'm posting this same message at some others sites I've visited. Thanks for the opportunity to be in the conversation on the GES Gospel.
My blog is at www.fredlybrand.org
God bless,
FRL
Hi Folks:
ReplyDeleteDr. Fred Lybrand is addressing the GES Crossless gospel advocates from his own blog exclusively, a very good decision, IMO.
Let's continue our support him and what he has done to clarify the debate. Visit his blog to support him and let's keep our comments focused on the GES gospel.
Some GES people may try to turn the discussion into a personality clash and/or create controversy where this is none to divert attention away from the reductionist errors of the GES gospel.
You can visit the pertinent thread at GES GOSPEL: Lybrand Open Letter.
LM
To All:
ReplyDeleteBecause of the significance of Dr. Lybrand's Open Letter I am leaving this article at the head of my blog longer than I normally would.
There are additional articles ready to post, but I will hold those for moment.
LM
Greetings:
ReplyDeleteAt the Fred Lybrand blog I was asked by an emotionally charged Crossless gospel advocate to comment on my view of the Crossless gospel. He wants to know how I feel about it in regard to whether or not it is heresy, a false gospel in light of Dr. Fred Lybrand’s first, but not final reply to the question. I feel it is a valid question and this was my reply.
1) Honesty is the best policy, and honestly before the Lord, regardless of Fred’s opinion, which he’s entitled to, I cannot see how the GES gospel is NOT heresy and/or a false gospel. In this respect, I must agree with Gary’s line of reasoning: If a person “cannot get saved from” the GES gospel and those who preach it and teach it need to “repent” of it, how is it not heretical and a false form of the gospel?
2) The real issue here is not what either Fred or myself think about a particular label, but what does the Word of God say about the “gospel?” If the “gospel” is “the message of the cross” according to God’s Word itself in *1 Cor. 1:17, and the lost must “believe” in Christ’s “work” on the cross and in His resurrection so as not to “perish” (**Acts 13:41), but GES comes along and actively says (i.e., “preaches”) to people that they DON’T have to believe in the very content that God says they must believe, how is that NOT “preaching a false gospell” or “heresy?” This is not a matter of GES men struggling internally with this Crossless question in their own personal conscience. They are actively, aggressively, publicly teaching and preaching their “Crossless” version of the good news. How is that NOT preaching a false gospel?
3) We all recognize that the term “heresy” is a loaded and emotionally charged word. I can understand Fred’s reluctance to use this term or even to say that his former GES associates are “preaching a false gospel.” That is a difficult admission for anyone regarding former friends or family members in the body of Christ, and I think Fred is trying to be polite here and keep the discussion focused on what saith the Scriptures? That’s his prerogative. I am, however, personally convinced in my conscience before God that the GES view is an egregious heresy and a false gospel and I am always ready and willing to say that publicly, without apology, even if other brethren who recognize the GES errors are not quite there yet.
LM
* “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ be made of none effect.”
**Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.”
Visit the Fred Lybrand blog to view the on-going discussion there.
ReplyDeleteLM
I am going to begin here by posting a few of the comments I have posted at Fred Lybrand's blog.I am responding to Gojire who earlier wondered if Gary (goe) would get down to the business of a fair and honest discussion of the doctrine. Well, we already have that answer, but my thoughts follow:
ReplyDeleteIf history is our teacher there is no way and no how any advocate of the GES Crossless gospel will answer in clear, unvarnished terms a legitimate question that if it is answered truthfully will expose the soft underbelly of the Crossless gospel.
In 2007 Wilkin was clamoring for someone outside GES to debate him on this issue. When Ron Shea stepped up to the plate with his Open Challenge (Start at the article furthest down the page and read up) Wilkin suddenly lost his taste (some believe Wilkin lost his nerve) for the debate and quickly backed out.
Antonio, well I now refer to him as *“Casper,” you know the friendly ghost. Why? Because of his vanishing act every time he is asked to answer a question that gets to the root of the GES’s reductionist, anti-biblical assault on the content of saving faith.
Zane Hodges, as Fred documented, refused to openly discuss his views with Fred in private.
In late 2007 the FGA proposed a private academic meeting to discuss the doctrinal controversy. The GES was invited to send five men to meet with five men from the non-GES camp. NO ONE in GES would agree to appear, including Hodges and Wilkin.
As for Gary, we gave him benefit of the doubt that he would answer some questions as he promised in this thread. Benefit of the doubt even though he was unwilling to give Fred the same consideration.
Anyway, from Hodges to Wilkin to Antonio to Alvin to Rose, they simply refuse to answer in unvarnished terms Bible based questions in regard to the GES’s Crossless, Resurrectionless, Deityless, Repentanceless,” interpretation of the Gospel.
LM
*This Casper trait has been adopted by Gary (goe) who pulled it off as expected, but not so “friendly” like our cartoon friend.
What is the common denominator among the GES people in these discussions?
ReplyDeleteThey come to the table with raw emotionalism. Their emotions are so heavily invested in their allegiance to their departed leader Zane Hodges no one can get through to their brains.
They have shown over and over and over that they will NOT engage in an open and honest discussion of the Gospel from the Scriptures. Their emotions cause them to react to legitimate questions and criticism as though they are personal attacks. They dodge, evade, double-speak, demonize or what they must to avoid answering questions. Why?
Their emotional attachments hinder and/or stop them from allowing their brains to engage in a rational debate. Their emotions will not allow them to consider even for a moment the slightest possibility that Hodges may have been wrong in his reductionism
We are seeing the same thing here at Brother Lybrand’s blog. It is the GES habitual reaction. GES and its sympathizers are reeling from the back-to-back articles from the FGA and Dr. Lybrand on the GES Crossless, “PROMISE”-Only gospel. Their emotions, therefore, are at fever-pitch. Until they learn to control and set aside their emotions we cannot reach their brains.
LM
(Fred, sorry, but I am not going to let this disingenuous facade of graciousness from da Rosa go unchallenged.)
ReplyDeleteAntonio da Rosa:
Honesty is the best policy; isn’t it? Of course you do not recognize questions from me but, take a moment here for some transparency.
Publicly confess, apologize and genuinely repent for your PUBLIC criminal libel and defamation of Brother Ron Shea! You publicly rumored one of the most scurrilous charges imaginable against him. With forethought and malice intended you defamed and besmirched him in the most heinous way imaginable.
Your private and secretive confessions (plural) do not absolve you of the responsibility to publicly confess and apologize for the PUBLIC sin you committed against Brother Shea and to a lesser extent me for having used my blog and my e-mail to besmirch Brother Ron.
You owe JP and Rose an apology. They both asked you if you had anything to do with the personal attack on Brother Shea. You categorically denied any involvement. You lied to both of them, publicly to JP (at his now defunct blog) and Rose publicly revealed you lied to her privately.
You used a false identity, The (Mr.) Truth Detector to publicly libel and defame a Brother in Christ.
Publicly confess, apologize and genuinely repent for your PUBLIC heinous, unethical attack on your brother(s) in Christ.
“If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me,” (Ps. 66:18). Your prayers are hindered!
LM
*To All: For complete details on da Rosa’s criminal behavior see-
OPEN LETTER to ANTONIO da ROSA: aka, The (Mr.) Truth Detector
To All:
ReplyDeleteAntonio da Rosa wrote above:
“The communication of the death, resurrection, and deity of Christ are indispensible in this endeavor. There is no chance that our preaching will drop the most persuasive elements of the gospel.”
NO need for any questions. A little full disclosure will be sufficient. Consider the following statements from Antonio da Rosa, such as:
“...my position that the cross and resurrection are not the conscious and necessary objects/content to saving faith, and my position that a man may be born again apart from an understanding of Christ’s death for sin.”
“Theologically speaking, ‘explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection’ is not soteriologically necessary for the reception of eternal life.”
“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.”
“I would never say you don’t have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. This has the import of the gospel proposition which makes it salvific! If someone asks me point blank, do I believe that one must believe that Jesus is God in order to go to heaven, I would say ‘NO!’”
“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.”
[WAIT! Antonio just stated above, “There is no chance that our preaching will drop the most persuasive elements of the gospel.” Striking inconsistency!]
“I do not believe that one must understand, assent to, or be aware of the historical Jesus of Nazareth’s deity in order to simply be justified and receive eternal life.”
In an evangelistic setting where the lost is concerned da Rosa stated it does not matter if he (lost man) is under the impression, “The Mormon Jesus & Evangelical Jesus Are One and the Same.” Antonio da Rosa believes that in the personal evangelism setting to present the Gospel, as da Rosa just defined it above as, “the death, resurrection, and deity of Christ,” and then to call upon the lost to believe this gospel, that: “May Indeed Frustrate God’s Grace.”
More in the next…
LM
To All:
ReplyDeleteWhat is the necessity of the gospel being “persuasive.” as Antonio said, when Crossless gospel advocates insist the lost can be saved apart from knowing, being persuaded of and believing the gospel? The gospel, which Antonio defined as, “the death, resurrection, and deity of Christ?” Antonio referred to the, “the death, resurrection, and deity of Christ,” as the “indispensible…most persuasive elements of the gospel.”
Another response to Antonio’s GES “Crossless, Deityless & Resurrectionless” gospel above. See-
The Technical Meaning of the term, “THE GOSPEL.” Greg Schliesmann dealt with the GES redefinition of, “the Gospel.” He asked, “Is the term ‘the gospel?’ ever used after Christ’s resurrection as a technical term for the specific message that the lost must believe to get saved?
Greg continued…
Before Jeremy Myers’s article The Gospel is More than Faith Alone, I had never heard any evangelical deny that the term “the gospel” does have such a technical usage. In fact, Myer’s view contradicts prior statements from the Grace Evangelical Society (GES). Even while advocating the crossless gospel, GES has argued that there is both a “broad” and “narrow” usage of the term “the gospel.” They argued that the “narrow” sense does refer to the message the lost must believe to be saved. That is why Zane Hodges could title his book The Gospel Under Siege. Crossless gospel proponents, however, have come to realize the impossibility of arguing that there is a “narrow” version of the term “the gospel” that does not include the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
[Update: Bob Wilkin, Executive Director of the GES, publicly announced his adoption of Jeremy Myer’s view at the GES Regional Conference in Dana Point, CA: August 24-25, 2007.]
LM
Diane:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “Friends, do you really want to separate from me because I agree with Zane Hodges and the GES?”
The issue is not what we want to do; it is about what the Bible mandates. Furthermore, you do more than “agree with ZH’s and the GES” reductionist errors, you are doing what you can to propagate and attract the unsuspecting to the reductionist heresy of ZH and GES.
You are one of the unfortunates who was exposed to and sadly fell in to the trap of Crossless gospel heresy. Because the GES membership continues to shrink into an increasingly small cell of theological extremists, you are by default a prime instigator.
No one misunderstood your little child illustration. It exemplified the tragedy of the Crossless gospel.
Your little child illustration is a tragic example of what comes from the anti-biblical teachings of ZH, Wilkin Niemelä, Bryant and Lopez.
The Bible is very clear in this situation.
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).
“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject,” (Titus 3:10)
The Crossless gospel is a “contrary” doctrine. It has introduced “divisions and offences” into the body of Christ. When it becomes clear as it has with GES that they reject biblical admonitions to turn from and repent of their gross heresy, the Bible commands that they be rejected. We must, therefore, obey the biblical mandates to “mark” so as to warn others to “avoid the teachers of the CG heresy so that they do not become exposed to and like you have succumb to the their egregious errors.
ZH originated a system of belief never before seen in NT times. The Crossless gospel is the most extreme and egregious form of reductionist heresy ever introduced to the NT church. The GES is the sole propagator of this reductionism, which is a non-saving, deconstructionist message.
You want unity in spite of the GES being the sole repository of a heretical form of the Gospel. This is a major doctrine and the GES has taken an altogether anti-biblical stance on the Gospel.
There can NEVER be fellowship or cooperation with GES until they depart from and repent of the CG heresy. Rose and Michele constantly cry for unity at the expense of fidelity to God and His Word. That is the cry of ecumenical compromise and those who love God and His Word above all will NEVER agree to that kind of sinful, unholy alliance.
The GES is in cardiac arrest as it should be, I still hope Wilkin right down to folks like you can be recovered from and repent of their heresy. I know that you GES people pack a great deal of emotion over this issue.
That is IMO because of your fierce loyalty to your departed hero, ZH. That is why IMO you GES people cannot for one moment consider ZH might have been wrong, your emotional attachment to Hodges won’t let you. This is why there has been very little success getting past GES people’s emotions to their brains.
LM
The lost man can consciously deny the Deity, Death and Resurrection of Christ and still be born again!
ReplyDeleteThat is what Antonio da Rosa, on behalf of the Grace Evangelical Society’s (GES) Crossless Gospel, affirmed today.
One of my blog partners, Kev, asked Antonio the question below. A question that Antonio has been dodging since Spring 2007. Today, however, he finally answered Kev’s question truthfully.
Kev asked Antonio, “Can a person be Eternally Saved while at the moment of Salvation deny or not know that Jesus is God, that He died for the person's personal sins on the Cross, that He was raised from the dead on the third day?”
Antonio answered, “Yes, a person can.…one could deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny.”
Antonio da Rosa is a long time member of the GES. Antonio was a featured speaker at the 2009 GES national conference. He is the blogosphere’s unofficial representative of Bob Wilkin’s GES.
Bob Wilkin has NEVER challenged or corrected this or *any of the heretical statements that Antonio has put on public record on behalf of the GES Crossless gospel.
Any lingering doubt that the reductionist teaching of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin, which da Rosa articulates is the most extreme form of reductionist heresy ever introduced to the NT church has been permanently erased.
LM
*In the next thread comment see additional statements from da Rosa verifying and affirming the Crossless gospel of Hodges, Wilkin and GES is anti-biblical attack on the content of saving faith.
Various da Rosa that express his view on the Gospel:
ReplyDelete“...my position that the cross and resurrection are not the conscious and necessary objects/content to saving faith, and my position that a man may be born again apart from an understanding of Christ’s death for sin.”
“Theologically speaking, ‘explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection’ is not soteriologically necessary for the reception of eternal life.”
“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.”
“I would never say you don’t have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. This has the import of the gospel proposition which makes it salvific! If someone asks me point blank, do I believe that one must believe that Jesus is God in order to go to heaven, I would say ‘NO!’”
“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.” (WAIT! Antonio just stated above, “There is no chance that our preaching will drop the most persuasive elements of the gospel.” Striking inconsistency!)
“I do not believe that one must understand, assent to, or be aware of the historical Jesus of Nazareth’s deity in order to simply be justified and receive eternal life.”
In an evangelistic setting where the lost is concerned da Rosa stated it does not matter if he (lost man) is under the impression, “The Mormon Jesus & Evangelical Jesus Are One and the Same.” Antonio da Rosa believes that in the personal evangelism setting to present the Gospel, as da Rosa just defined it above as, “the death, resurrection, and deity of Christ,” and then to call upon the lost to believe this gospel, that: “May Indeed Frustrate God’s Grace.”
To- Bob Wilkin, Stephen Lewis, John Niemela, Bob Bryant, Rene Lopez, Gary (goe), Alvin, agent4him, Michele, Rose & all GES Crossless gospel people:
ReplyDeleteOn April 23 Kev asked Antonio da Rosa this question,
“Can a person be Eternally Saved while at the moment of Salvation deny or not know that Jesus is God, that He died for the person's personal sins on the Cross, that He was raised from the dead on the third day?
Antonio (speaking on behalf of the GES Crossless Gospel) answered Kev’s question this way,
“Yes, a person can…one could (consciously) deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?”
Do you GES people agree with Antonio da Rosa, speaking on behalf of the GES interpretation of the Gospel, clearly affirmed he believes a lost man can consciously deny the deity of Christ, His death and/or resurrection, but still be born again?
LM
To All:
ReplyDeleteThis is one of my Friday posts from the Fred Lybrand blog.. I may this and the one above full articles here.
I believe it was Gojira who earlier expressed some concern over what this debate may be doing to the Free Grace (FG) movement as a whole. I want to reassure him (and all) that this current debate is doing a great deal of GOOD for the Free Grace community. How so?
A Synopsis:For the better part of 10 years the Grace Evangelical Society (GES), under Hodges and Wilkin, has steadily fallen into worsening forms of false teaching on several points of doctrine, primarily the Gospel. Those outside the FG camp have long been under the grossly erroneous impression that GES is the representative voice of the at large FG camp. That is a SERIOUS misnomer that has been in sore need of correction.
Linking all FG men to the reductionism of GES is a public relations disaster, but a worthy cause to address and correct. That misnomer is being corrected, slowly at first, but now with the FGA official statement and Brother Lybrand’s OPEN LETTER many outside the FG camp are seeing in stark terms that the GES is an aberrant movement that is far to the extreme left of any respectable, balanced Bible-believing fellowship.
Antonio is providing a treasure trove of insight in to the reductionist heresy that was originated by Hodges and today propagated by no one out side the GES fellowship. In 36 hours da Rosa who IS speaking for Bob Wilkin’s GES Crossless gospel has proven how and why the GES Gospel is an egregious assault on the content of saving faith.
On April 23 the following exchange took place at this (the Fred Lybrand) blog. The opening question was posted to da Rosa by my friend and blog partner, Kevl.
Kevl asked, “Can a person be Eternally Saved while at the moment of Salvation deny or not know that Jesus is God, that He died for the person's personal sins on the Cross, that He was raised from the dead on the third day?
Antonio (speaking on behalf of the GES Crossless Gospel) answered Kev’s question this way,
“Yes, a person can…one could (consciously) deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?”
Conclusion:The Free Grace movement is coming through and will come out of this current debate stronger that what is was going in.
The need is NOT for numbers! The need is NOT for ecumenical compromise, which Rose and Michele have been begging for. The need is NOT for a façade of unity with the teachers of GES reductionism at the expense of fidelity to God and His Word. The need IS for purity before God and a clear conscience, which can only be achieved in the FG community by forsaking fellowship with the GES teachers of reductionist heresy.
The GES Gospel is no gospel at all, it is an anti-biblical error. The GES Crossless gospel is NOT a builder; it is a destroyer! It is a destroyer of souls and a destroyer of the body of Christ. I do not worry nearly as much about the unsaved false teachers without the church, as I do about the termites on the inside.
The GES is a shrinking cell of extremist termites trying to chip away at the foundation of our faith, THE GOSPEL. They are being and must continually be driven toward and isolated into the extremist corner of the Christian community that they now occupy.
The GES, by its own hand, especially through the writing of the likes of Antonio da Rosa and his followers has become a spectacle wonder and stunned amazement for the world wide body of Christ.
The GES will for decades serve as a stark and tragic example of what becomes of otherwise good men once they are deceived by and become the prime instigators of an all out attack on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We will be able to point the unsuspecting to the reductionism of GES, what it did to those who fell into the trap of the Crossless gospel
The long needed hard lines of division are being clearly drawn between GES Gospel reductionist heresy and the rest of the FG community that rejects the GES Crossless gospel.
Believers must NEVER relent, or let down our guard for moment when it comes to the GES and its advocates. They must NEVER be give an opportunity to gain any kind of traction for the Crossless gospel beyond the borders of its own extremist membership. We must NEVER cease to : “mark” so that others will, “avoid” GES and the possibility of falling into the trap of the Crossless gospel.
The GES men have rejected every admonition in regard to the heresy of the Crossless gospel. There have been many attempts to admonish them according to the Scriptures. The GES men either will not discuss their views, or reject any admonish they receive and there have been many admonitions given.
Most attempts to dialogue teach and/or admonish are rejected. They reject and sometimes react with gross hostility and the most heinous libel imaginable when admonished to turn from the heresy of Zane Hodges’s Crossless, Deityless and Resurrectionless GES Gospel. We, therefore, have no choice, but to follow the biblical mandate that calls on us to “reject” them (Titus 3:10).
Pray for the remnant of the GES people to be recovered from and repent of the Crossless gospel. Lord willing they will one day set aside their fierce, emotional attachment to their departed leader, Zane Hodges. IMO, the allegiance to Hodges is blocking them from listening to or considering for the slightest moment that Hodges may have been wrong.
If GES people will set aside their emotions just long enough to listen and let the Spirit do His convincing work they yet one day may repent of the Crossless gospel. Let’s pray to that end. Until then, contend for truth.
LM
Acts 20:28-31; Romans 16:17-18, Titus 3:10.
To All:
ReplyDeleteKev from the On My Walk blog just left an appeal to Antonio da Rosa at Fred Lybrands's blog. It is sincere and compelleing. I want to share an excerpt it with you that you might pray for Antonio's delieverance and recovery from the GES Crossless gospel.
Antonio:
Can I just believe that He(or he as you believe) will give me something called "Eternal Life" and that's what I'll get. Just that? I don't have to have Him (him) around do I?
Your stated answer is so ambiguous that it is meaningless. Even the Apostle explained the "Word of the Lord" to the Jailer who asked him "What must I do to be saved?"
Antonio, some will dance around the subject. I can not. I DO thank you for answering this question. We have all of us known what the answer would be for as long as we've been asking it. Even most of the people following you have known, but have not wanted it to be stated.
You are a preacher of heresy. It breaks my heart to say such a thing. Please, please. Shut off the computer. Take a vacation and just read the Scriptures pouring out your heart to God. Please Antonio. I'm writing to you now, as though God Himself were pleading with you to be reconciled to Him.
This isn't about what you say you preach. Lots of preachers make mistakes... even knowingly say the wrong thing. Some stand up and say the right thing but all the while they counsel people against what they say at the pulpit. You have allowed your voice to be added to this last group.
I want no wrath for you. I need no payment for the sin. I'm desperated for you to please cast of the GES heresy that you have adopted. Stand up for the clear truth of the Scriptures.
Antonio you yourself don't need to be strong enough to do it. Please before Holy God, ask Him to do it for you. I'm so scared for you. I'm terrified for those who come under this evil influence. I shudder for the souls of those who think they are saved because they believed some guy named Jesus for Eternal Life. I trust my faithful God that if they start to receive that He will give them what the need to be saved - I have no choice but to pray that they will continue to seek.
Many gain entertainment from our arguments, and the political games but this is life and death. Antonio, you are leading people to their destruction. You are robbing glory from our God. You are using His Name in vain. You are despising the Gospel.
You are breaking my heart.
Kev
Fred:
ReplyDeleteI sincerely appreciate your OPEN LETTER on the GES Crossless, Promise- ONLY Gospel. I also appreciate your participation in this thread.
For me one of the most helpful things that came out of this long thread is Antonio’s long awaited admission that he and the GES believe the lost man can consciously deny the deity, death and/or resurrection of Christ, but still be born again.
We all knew that is the position of Antonio and GES. We knew that they have been keeping that fact under raps, but we an thank Antonio for revealing this in clear, unequivocal terms.
Kevl asked Antonio, “Can a person be Eternally Saved while at the moment of Salvation deny or not know that Jesus is God, that He died for the person's personal sins on the Cross, that He was raised from the dead on the third day?
Antonio (speaking on behalf of the GES Crossless Gospel) answered Kev’s question this way,
“Yes, a person can…one could (consciously) deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?”
That clear, unequivocal admission settles any lingering doubt as to whether not the GES Crossless gospel is not just heresy, but the most extreme form ever introduced to the New Testament church.
Of course, Brother Reitman and no GES advocate or sympathizer will ever respond to my question as to whether or not they agree with Antonio’s admission. They will dodge and evade that one at any cost, as Reitman demonstrated this evening.
LM
PS: Long shot here, but is it possible Wilkin is going to take da Rosa to the woodshed for revealing the conscience denial of the Lord's deity, death and resurrection position of the GES Gospel.
This is Fred Lybrand's closing comment for the discussion thread.
ReplyDeleteHi All,
Thanks so much for this spirited conversation. I'm discovering that a lot of you guys are very frustrated with one another about how you communicate in blogs. Personally, I haven't concluded what the proper thing to do is...right now I'm simply all for free speech. Honestly, some of you made yourselves look bad...mostly to my 21 year old and 18 year old sons. They kind of felt I was being ripped up, but without reasoning or cause. Frankly, it led to good conversation about letting people hold their views; thanks for the parenting opportunity.
I'm going to stop this stream because it is now just too long, though I do think it offers a nice opportunity to read about the debate.
The last words I'd like to share about this conversation on my "Open Letter" is that I really am quite amazed at how much this is affecting everyone, in particular those who have been in the middle (like me).
My plea to everyone is to give those who are wrestling the opportunity to wrestle. Give them some time to think and weigh the passages. Give them a chance without forcing them to decide if they 'agree' with you (or me).
These matters are weighty...but, in time, 1 Corinthians 1:17ff will prevail. Free Gracers are going to see the mistake in the GES Gospel. GES is going to greatly diminish (or it will correct its error and join back with us.
In any event, I want to point out a passage Rene mentioned to me over the phone:
"...because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." (Romans 10:9-10, ESV)
I know this is a challenging passage and likely refers (in the overall context) to discipleship / sanctification. However, it is striking that believing in the resurrection for justification is clearly stated in the passage (justification is accepted by virtually everyone as a technical---single meaning---term in the book of Romans; forensic, declared righteous. It may have imputed overtones, but that doesn't help because the resurrection is still required as an object of faith).
My final plea is to come join us in the Free Grace Movement by pitching in with the Free Grace Alliance (www.freegracealliance.com)
Here's the Covenant we affirm as members, but live imperfectly as yet-to-be-perfected saints:
FGA CovenantAs members of the Evangelical Tradition, we affirm the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the inspired Word of God and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. Furthermore, God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory. As members of this tradition, we are concerned about the clear understanding, presentation, and advancement of the Gospel of God’s Free Grace.
We affirm the following:1. The Grace of God in justification is an unconditional free gift.
2. The sole means of receiving the free gift of eternal life is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose substitutionary death on the cross fully satisfied the requirement for our justification.
3. Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.
4. Justification is the act of God to declare us righteous when we believe in Jesus Christ alone.
5. Assurance of justification is the birthright of every believer from the moment of faith in Jesus Christ, and is founded upon the testimony of God in His written Word.
6. Spiritual growth, which is distinct from justification, is God’s expectation for every believer; this growth, however, is not necessarily manifested uniformly in every believer.
7. The Gospel of Grace should always be presented with such clarity and simplicity that no impression is left that justification requires any step, response, or action in addition to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Covenant:In agreement with these affirmations, we covenant to work together graciously and enthusiastically to advance this Gospel of Grace, and to communicate with a positive and gracious tone toward all others, both inside and outside the Free Grace Alliance.
Lou, I know you are ware that Don Reiher has posted a response to Fred's open letter. I have created a topic for it on the theotalk forum and invite you and your guests to participate there if you approve. Thanks for your consideration.
ReplyDeletehttp://theotalk.knetdome.net/discuss/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16
Stephen:
ReplyDeleteMore that happy to accommodate this one. I just posted there myself.
Lou
Thanks Lou. I think you and your readers may wish to know that Fred posted an initial response on the forum just a few hours ago.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate very much Fred's willingness to engage this discussion and to shed light on the issues as only someone who "was there" can do.