tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post1274382060818552765..comments2024-02-27T03:28:22.684-06:00Comments on In Defense of the Gospel: Clinching the Deal on the “Crossless” GospelLou Martuneachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-19035201146510675382008-10-01T11:10:00.000-05:002008-10-01T11:10:00.000-05:00Agreed!LouAgreed!<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-17448703360455218522008-10-01T11:08:00.000-05:002008-10-01T11:08:00.000-05:00The more I think about this the more I see JB's bo...The more I think about this the more I see JB's book leaping of the pages and into real life. Rose is "exclusive" in the sense that she's stalwartly Free Grace, yet within that realm she yields to the wishy-washy-ness of post-modernism's uncertainty as-if it's diplomatic, noble, and praiseworthy. I think you gotta admit that the pieces fit together pretty well.Orangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13385339200643211924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-86359821333189637682008-10-01T11:03:00.000-05:002008-10-01T11:03:00.000-05:00Stephen:By way of follow-up...I wrote, "Rose is no...Stephen:<BR/><BR/>By way of follow-up...<BR/><BR/>I wrote, "<I>Rose is no “fence sitter on Lordship’s false additions to the cosf</I>."<BR/><BR/>You replied, "<I>That's a good clarification Lou. It proves she does have some strength of conviction regarding what the Gospel ISN'T but isn't so sure about what it IS</I>."<BR/><BR/>The <I>Crossless</I> gospel is such an extreme polar opposite of Lordship Salvation that even for Rose there must be some sense that there is balanced position at near center between the two extremes, somewhere in the middle anyway. <BR/><BR/>She shows almost no evidence that she has found that middle ground. She swings her <B>sympathy and allegiances far to the side of the <I>CG</I></B> and its advocates, a position that IMO is way off a biblically balanced center.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, I think you have made an astute assessment<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-14443286560828926092008-10-01T10:53:00.000-05:002008-10-01T10:53:00.000-05:00lou: "She does run interference for the CG and its...lou: "She does run interference for the CG and its advocates"<BR/><BR/>I agree, but I think that's just because we're being exclusive. She also "ran interference" for us to a degree when ZH wrote the Hydra's Other Head that excluded us. I don't say this to her credit, nor do I state it meanly; But it was her Hydra's head article that sparked me to realize that she's not really "in" either FG camp. Her other recent statements, seen in this light, have revealed what I believe is the post-modern core of Rose's reasonings.<BR/><BR/>lou: "Rose is no “fence sitter on Lordship’s false additions to the cosf"<BR/><BR/>That's a good clarification Lou. It proves she does have some strength of conviction regarding what the Gospel ISN'T but isn't so sure about what it IS. Lordship is obviously too far askew, but when it comes to HistoricFG and RedefinedFG she's not so sure anymore, hence her hedge on issues she believes are "within" the walls of FG as a greater whole. It's like Christians who know that baptism isn't required for salvation but can't exactly define what IS required either.Orangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13385339200643211924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-80523042487522249412008-10-01T10:15:00.000-05:002008-10-01T10:15:00.000-05:00Stephen:I think you are on to something and I am i...Stephen:<BR/><BR/>I think you are on to something and I am in substantive agreement with you. <BR/><BR/>IMO, however, she is very sympathetic toward the <I>Crossless</I> gospel (CG) and its advocates. She does run interference for the CG and its advocates. She does encourage everyone to be receptive to and accepting of the reductionist teaching of the <I>Crossless</I> gospel. The other factor is that she is passionate in her rejection of <I>Lordship Salvation</I>. <B>Rose is no “<I>fence sitter</I></B> on Lordship’s false additions to the content of saving faith (cosf).<BR/><BR/>In any event, I would be very curious to know if Rose would agree with how you have assessed her position. I will see to it this comes to her attention? Maybe she will reply to your thoughts at her blog.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-6293649444367968172008-10-01T09:38:00.000-05:002008-10-01T09:38:00.000-05:00Hey Lou. I'm startin' to think that Rose is in a w...Hey Lou. I'm startin' to think that Rose is in a whole new category. Seems she adheres to what might be better termed a 'we can't know' gospel, or the 'who cares' gospel ala Tim Nichols -- an inclusive view that is sympathetic to pretty much all Christian gospels based on the premise that we can't know for sure so we just do our best and then "leave it up to God". As I pointed out earlier, that indicates a pretty low view of inspiration. She's essentially taking a stand on uncertainty. i.e. "I'm not certain of the cosf so the rest of you shouldn't be so certain either." If I'm assessing her view correctly, and I did say "if", then that explains a lot. If true then she's technically correct to state she's not sympathetic to the crossless gospel, but her own uncertainty won't allow her to reject'em either. Neither does she reject us. She's inclusive and isn't "on" either side. None of this is new information really, I'm just seeing it more clearly now. It makes her inclusive position more "understandable" but also more saddening. For all my disagreement with the crossless folks, at least they are committed to a specific if painfully reduced cosf. Rose isn't committed to anything except the middle -- and this is one of those cases where being in the "middle" reveals a compromised stance rather than balance.<BR/><BR/>Like I said, none of this is strictly new info but putting it together casts a whole new light on it for me. IMO, saying Rose is crossless is truly not a correct label to saddle her with... her actual position is, IMO, <B>worse</B> than crossless in that it's couched in comfy post-modern terms -- ala "we just can't know". Rose may think she's a harbinger of peace and reason with such a position but she's, wittingly or not, chipping away at the idea of objective knowable truth. No wonder she's on the fence so often, she seems to think "the fence" is a reasonable position. This kind of lukewarm view of objective truth is central to what I've read in JB's <I>Getting the Gospel Wrong</I>. My heart breaks with compassion for Rose and those like her more than ever.<BR/><BR/>One more thing. Rose also said "Both sides have the same content in their presentation to the lost." But why? I pointed out in <A HREF="http://thelandofreason.blogspot.com/2008/05/really-consistent.html" REL="nofollow">Really Consistent?</A> on our blog that their <B>practice</B> is logically inconsistent with their <B>view</B> that such info is truly optional. If it's their view that this info is optional then it's legalistic and inconsistent of THEM to insist it always be presented anyway. Seems to me that whenever the RedefinedFG crowd tries to saddle us with a negative label it logically applies to them more than to us anyway. I love irony, too bad the implications are so sad in this case.Orangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13385339200643211924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-84516971020023825522008-09-30T23:17:00.000-05:002008-09-30T23:17:00.000-05:00Rose:At Gordon’s Heavenly Heartburn (HH) blog you ...Rose:<BR/><BR/>At Gordon’s <I>Heavenly Heartburn</I> (HH) blog you left this for me, <BR/><BR/>I do, appreciate your extending a blessing to me and I hope for the best for you.<BR/><BR/>As for your invitation that I participate at your blog, I respectfully decline. <BR/><BR/>1) I am not going to participate at your blog that has been sympathetic toward and supportive of the reductionist heresy of the <I>Crossless</I> gospel.<BR/><BR/>2) I am not going to participate at a blog when my views are censored upfront to help you legitimize their reductionist heresies. You host and support the views of <I>Crossless</I> advocates. I have no desire to interact with them as though they are orthodox in their doctrine. It would be tragic to give any sense of credibility to them and their reductionist heresies by interacting with them as if their egregious errors do not exist or as you say are a minor, “<I>difference of opinion that is acceptable</I>.”<BR/><BR/>3) Why would I want to participate at a blog (yours and/or <I>Unashamed</I>) that has with either your initiation, tolerance of and/or participation calls into question my motives, character and reputation?<BR/><BR/>You are much more than a friend to the teachers of the <I>Crossless</I> gospel, you are sympathetic toward, defensive and supportive of their teaching. If you do believe the “<I>Crossless/Deityless</I>” gospel is error you prefer the ecumenical approach with them. What many are coming to believe, but I am not yet sure of it, you have embraced the GES’s “<I>Crossless</I>” gospel, but are unwilling to come out openly for it.<BR/><BR/>At <I>HH</I> you invite me to participate at your blog. And this right on the heels of your posting yet another string of your on-going pattern of dodging the crux of the <I>Crossless</I> gospel controversy, falsely claiming (the GES mantra) that their Crossless gospel has been misrepresented, you are running interference for that egregious error and the advocates of it with the absurd claims that it is a mere “<I>theory, doctrinal nuance and a difference of opinion that is acceptable</I>.”<BR/><BR/>Again, as for your invitation: Thanks, but NO THANKS! I am a little dubious about the merits and conditions of your invitation.<BR/><BR/>I will not join the discussions at any of your pro-<I>Crossless</I> gospel blogs. I will do nothing that may give the false and dangerous impression that the <I>Crossless</I> gospel is a, “<I>difference of opinion that is acceptable</I>.”<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-50944036359472885672008-09-30T23:11:00.000-05:002008-09-30T23:11:00.000-05:00Dear Guests:I did not want to post the following r...Dear Guests:<BR/><BR/>I did not want to post the following reply to Rose at <I><B>Heavenly Heartburn</B></I> (HH) under the article, <I><B><A HREF="http://heavenlyheartburn.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/the-heart-of-the-gospel" REL="nofollow">The Heart of the Gospel</A>,</B></I> because Gordon asked that no more be posted in that thread. <BR/><BR/>However, since Rose’s note to me, which I reproduce below, is in a public forum, IMO it necessitates a public reply. Rose has received an e-mail from me with my reply and notified that it also appears here. <BR/><BR/>Here is what Rose left for me at <I>HH</I>. My reply follows in the next comment.<BR/><BR/><I>”Lou, I hope that the Lord blesses you this year and that you have great peace and prosperity in your soul. I wish you no ill, but I find it difficult to interact with you on the internet around this issue. Since this issue seems to be all you want to talk about, I have to respectfully ask you to talk with someone else about it. <BR/><BR/>You are welcome to comment on my blog as long as you do not bring this up. I never meant to ‘ban’ you. I just didn’t want your comments about this subject anymore. God bless</I>.”Lou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-62185486540706512152008-09-30T22:22:00.000-05:002008-09-30T22:22:00.000-05:00Stephen:You noted this from Rose at Gordon's bog, ...Stephen:<BR/><BR/>You noted this from Rose at Gordon's bog, "<I>If I don’t get it, I never will, cause I have read and talked about this more than I care to</I>."<BR/><BR/>Rose knows and understands that the GES men are teaching- that the lost can be saved apart from knowing, understanding or believing in the deity, death and/or resurrection of Christ.<BR/><BR/>Rose is determined to run interference for the <I>Crossless</I> gospel. She not only visits various blogs and often invites the unsuspecting to her pro-<I>Crossless</I> <I>Unashamed of Grace</I> blog, which exposes people to the <I>Crossless</I> gospel, but at the same time she is trying to stifle any negative discussion of that error. She wants to legitimize the <I>Crossless</I> heresy and maintain friendship with the teachers of this error because either:<BR/><BR/>1) She has come to embrace the <I>Crossless</I> but will not admit it openly.<BR/><BR/>2) She knows it is wrong, but is totally ecumenical in her approach to this heresy. She wants unity at the expense of doctrine with the reductionist teachers.<BR/><BR/>The ironic part is that she is openly against the obvious errors of Lordship Salvation. On the GES reductionist assaults of the Gospel she is sympathetic toward and supportive of the teaching and the teachers of it.<BR/><BR/>Rose is not just a tragic example, of what an ecumenical approach to the GES reductionist heresy can turn you into, but she also represents a danger to the unsuspecting who may be deceived by the <I>Crossless</I> advocates because Rose told the unsuspecting that these men are only talking about a mere “<I>theory, doctrinal nuance, and it is only a difference of opinion that is acceptable</I>.”<BR/><BR/><BR/>LM<BR/><BR/>PS: Rose can’t even bring herself to give a sharp rebuke to another one of her <I>Crossless</I> blog partners, Matthew, who is posting the unbelievable heresies of Joey Faust's Millennial Exclusion teaching.Lou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-28563401378559910222008-09-30T15:40:00.000-05:002008-09-30T15:40:00.000-05:00Lou, thanks for the kind words. I'm glad God has a...Lou, thanks for the kind words. I'm glad God has allowed our blogging paths to cross. My awareness of this issue has greatly increased because of it.<BR/><BR/>God bless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-78717444599691726582008-09-30T08:38:00.000-05:002008-09-30T08:38:00.000-05:00Mornin' everyone. I don't mean to belabor the poin...Mornin' everyone. I don't mean to belabor the point but another thought came to mind about the suggestion that the content of saving faith (cosf) is nuance/theory.<BR/><BR/>What about missionaries translating the gospel into a new language? If all the missionary has to do is translate enough to tell'em that somebody named Jesus will give'em everlasting life then they can start missionary-ing much sooner. If, on the other hand, they feel they must also translate such concepts as sin, substitutionary atonement, and resurrection into the language then that obviously delays their efforts a bit. Meanwhile, real people are really dying and heading off to a real eternity without Jesus while the missionary works on translating these "optional" items. If these items truly are optional, then why on earth would I as a missionary risk muddying my message with translationally complex terms that aren't even necessary. It is obvious then that foreign missionaries are poignant examples of ministries in which determining the specific cosf is most certainly not theory or nuance.<BR/><BR/>Look, I don't have a personal vendetta with Rose, but I do believe she's very confused and not being very "reasonable". At this point, frankly, she seems to be a bit of an enigma to both sides of the cosf (content of saving faith) argument. On the GES end of the spectrum you have BW saying it's not nuance, ZH says it not nuance, and AdR (not officially GES) says it not nuance. On our end of the spectrum... well... it's obvious we don't think it's nuance either.<BR/><BR/>Fundamentally I think Rose is a very nice person, nothing wrong with that. But I do believe she has allowed 'nice' to cloud here 'reason'. It simply isn't reasonable to claim the cosf is for "debating theology with other believers". Tell that to the real people with real souls who are going to a real and Christless eternity while missionaries work on meaningful translations of the gospel into their language.<BR/><BR/>Rose has never wronged me personally, far as I know we're on reasonable terms and I hope this is taken in that light. Rose said this at Gordon's -- "If I don’t get it, I never will, cause I have read and talked about this more than I care to." I hope for her sake, and those like her, that that's not true and that she'll consider being more reasonable.Orangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13385339200643211924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-73461562092167852552008-09-29T22:51:00.000-05:002008-09-29T22:51:00.000-05:00Gordon:It is a blessing to have friend who underst...Gordon:<BR/><BR/>It is a blessing to have friend who understands the Gospel, and can with eloquence articulate it in such a way that aberrant interpretations of it, whether by addition to or subtraction from the content of saving faith, can be recognized by the unsuspecting.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-23804919062231865972008-09-29T22:34:00.000-05:002008-09-29T22:34:00.000-05:00Lou and Kevl, thanks for the kind words. Kevl, you...Lou and Kevl, thanks for the kind words. Kevl, your comment is accurate and appreciated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-58311751652872260292008-09-29T16:55:00.000-05:002008-09-29T16:55:00.000-05:00I posted a more complete argument at my blog just ...I posted a more complete argument at my blog just now. <BR/><BR/>http://onmywalk.blogspot.com/2008/09/is-there-any-question.html <BR/><BR/>KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-7974683182390200452008-09-29T15:07:00.000-05:002008-09-29T15:07:00.000-05:00Kev:I'm glad you shared this with us here. IMO, it...Kev:<BR/><BR/>I'm glad you shared this with us here. IMO, it would make a good article.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-12797519540133299042008-09-29T15:02:00.000-05:002008-09-29T15:02:00.000-05:00Hi Lou, I posted this over at Gordon's blog but I ...Hi Lou, I posted this over at Gordon's blog but I think it's relevant here too. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>There is no hypothetical question to be answered.<BR/><BR/>Of the idea that someone on an island would only have access to something less than the Gospel that Christ Himself instructed the Apostle Paul to preach and that which was witnessed and preached by every Apostle (1 Cor 15:11) and so a person in that position would have to be able to be saved by “receiving” some lesser amount of information is a <B>contrary-to-the-premise fallacy.</B><BR/><BR/>The premise of the question is that God will not give more information than seems available.<BR/><BR/>God Himself has something all-together different to say on the subject. Speaking of the publicity of the Cross - the Lampstand - He Himself has this to say.<BR/><BR/><I><B>Mark 4:21-25</B><BR/>21 Also He said to them, “Is a lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed? Is it not to be set on a lampstand? 22 For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light. 23 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”<BR/>24 Then He said to them, “Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given. 25 For whoever has, to him more will be given; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.”</I><BR/><BR/>Like the Eunuch.<BR/><BR/>If any responds to any revelation of God, even general revelation of Creation ala Rom 1 God will respond and get that info to them. Even if He has to translate someone from one part of the world to another.<BR/><BR/>The Gospel IS the power of God to Salvation. He doesn’t circumvent it so neither should we.<BR/><BR/>I think when our zeal to make God accessible to people turns Him into a god (not God but an idol) we expose our how much in the world we still are.<BR/><BR/>I might build this up into an article, but I hope it’s helpful here.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your article Gordon.<BR/><BR/>KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-50813720551351599112008-09-29T14:10:00.000-05:002008-09-29T14:10:00.000-05:00Stephen: Here is the Q/A you referred to between ...Stephen: <BR/><BR/>Here is the Q/A you referred to between Dave and Rose. <BR/><BR/>Dave’s question was “<I>Can one be saved that does not know who Jesus really was <B>and</B> even without knowing that He died for them</I>?” <BR/><BR/>Dave asked all to answer with “<I>yes or no to that simple question... </I>.” <BR/><BR/>This was her reply- “<I>My (Rose’s) answer: very very doubtful. A probable no. Virtually impossible.</I> ” <BR/><BR/>As you noted, Rose straddles the fence on a question like that. She just cannot bring herself to give a clear, unvarnished answer to any question that gets the root of the doctrinal controversy.<BR/><BR/>She has a consistent track record of dodging any question that may put her at open and public odds with her friends in GES’s <I>Crossless</I> gospel camp or possibly reveal that she has totally embraced the teaching of the <I>Crossless</I> gospel.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-38283942928605297372008-09-29T12:34:00.000-05:002008-09-29T12:34:00.000-05:00Friends:In recent days I have been visiting the He...Friends:<BR/><BR/>In recent days I have been visiting the <I><B>Heavenly Heartburn</B></I> blog administered by Brother Gordon Cloud. <BR/><BR/>I want everyone to read Brother Gordon Cloud’s outstanding article titled, <I><B><A HREF="http://heavenlyheartburn.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/the-heart-of-the-gospel/#comments" REL="nofollow">The Heart of the Gospel</A></B></I>, which is IMO a compelling, biblical refutation of the GES’s <I>Crossless</I> interpretation of the content of saving faith.<BR/><BR/>You will find a brief interaction I had with Rose, including a harmless question I posted to Rose in the thread.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-76332041775195313512008-09-29T12:15:00.000-05:002008-09-29T12:15:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-39254034729953266862008-09-29T10:54:00.000-05:002008-09-29T10:54:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-25590559485374737402008-09-29T10:53:00.000-05:002008-09-29T10:53:00.000-05:00When I said "Jeremy Myers understood this" I meant...When I said "Jeremy Myers understood this" I meant to flesh out that he posted at a free grace forum quite some time ago explaining exactly why the content of saving faith is not theory. He referenced his own daughter's salvation and what he believes was a meaningful statement of faith by her. How is that theoretical? When I can share the message of salvation to my child is forefront on the mind of Christian parents. If my child only needs to believe that somebody named Jesus out of some book I claim is important will give them everlasting life if they just believe he'll do it, then that has immense PRACTICAL application in how/when I present that to them. If that's all they need to know then, yeah, I can probably get'em to profess that soon after they begin to speak... 2 - 3 maybe. if I think they need to also believe he's the son of God who died for their sins and rose again then that pushes that conversation back a bit, potentially years. Knowing how much comprehension is necessary directly affects when we deliver the gospel of salvation to our kids. Tell a Christian parent that when they can meaningfully present salvation to their child is a matter of "theory" and you're likely to get slapped in the face for mocking their genuine concern over their child's everlasting well-being. That ain't theory.Orangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13385339200643211924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-18478422348629164722008-09-29T10:34:00.000-05:002008-09-29T10:34:00.000-05:00Kev:Thanks for the input. It is sad that the few ...Kev:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the input. It is sad that the few who do defend the <I>Crossless</I> gospel are practicing unity at the expense of fidelity doctrinal truth.<BR/><BR/>Rose is the most stark example of being tossed to and fro and ultimately falling into compromise with gross doctrinal error I have seen in years from some one who claims to be a Fundamentalist. She knows the GES teaches that the lost can be saved apart from knowing, understanding or believing in the deity or finished work of Christ and says these things are mere “<I>theory</I>,” a “<I>doctrinal nuance</I>,” and a “<I>difference of opinion that is acceptable</I>.”<BR/><BR/>Now we have a new incredible statement Rose just posted at her pro- <I>Crossless</I> gospel group blog <I>Unashamed</I> that Stephen just noted.<BR/><BR/>That statement removes any lingering doubt that Rose is more than sympathetic toward the <I>Crossless</I> gospel, she has been deceived and is now offering tacit support for the <I>Crossless</I> gospel. This is a tragic result of what comes from working in cooperation with the teachers of this reductionist assault on the Person and work of Jesus Christ. <BR/><BR/>The only remaining question is when she will, Lord willing, be recovered from their errors, or finally come out openly for the GES’s aberration of the content of saving faith.<BR/><BR/>As for the GES, the Hodges article truly signals the death knell for the GES. It is a shrinking cell of theological extremists and as long as they will openly express their reductionist views their numbers will continue to shrink and they will be less able to deceive any more unsuspecting believers who stumble across the <I>Crossless</I> gospel.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-33656599381269779632008-09-29T10:16:00.000-05:002008-09-29T10:16:00.000-05:00Oh, and I meant to point out that they did the sam...Oh, and I meant to point out that they did the same thing over at Dave Osas'... cried "misrepresentation". The only "misrepresentation" I saw over there was THEM misrepresenting our criticism of their view. I wish Dave hadn't deleted that article as there were some good statements in the comments which revealed their glaring inability/unwillingness to represent the criticisms squarely. Rose dodged a straight answer, so did Michelle, and Antonio's public silence screams. I'm looking forward to Dave's final word on the matter though, maybe he'll bring some of this out -- I think he got a clear picture of the issues and showed the integrity and clearness of mind to demonstrate that he can weed the personal attacks out of the arguments themselves.<BR/><BR/>Kevl: <B>I sometimes feel anger about some of them but mostly I'm just terribly sad for those who continue to protect friendships at the expense of being able to stand firmly on the Word of God.</B><BR/><BR/>Well said Kevl, amen and amen.Orangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13385339200643211924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-7994233228460832112008-09-29T10:06:00.000-05:002008-09-29T10:06:00.000-05:00It's really easy to get into the grain of defendin...It's really easy to get into the grain of defending a person or a position beyond reason... and as we've seen with several people in their camp their study habbits and discussion practices feed on each other. <BR/><BR/>One error leads to another. It's a self-destructive community. The popularity of some key figures keep it together for this season. However, like everything built on shifting sand even now we can hear the creaks as it prepares to tumble. <BR/><BR/>these poor people are being tossed to and fro by the doctrines of men. I sometimes feel anger about some of them but mostly I'm just terribly sad for those who continue to protect friendships at the expense of being able to stand firmly on the Word of God. <BR/><BR/>KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-31113592418280372912008-09-29T09:58:00.000-05:002008-09-29T09:58:00.000-05:00Good mornin' Lou. It reminds me of what happened a...Good mornin' Lou. It reminds me of what happened at head of the moor a few months ago. Antonio (and I think Rose too) repeatedly cried "misreperesentation" yet Jonathan found no such thing... and he doesn't have a dog in this fight so I'd say that's pretty objective.<BR/><BR/>Or take Dave Osas' simple yes/no question about whether someone can be saved without believing in Jesus' death/burial/resurrection. (I don't remember the exact wording and the thread is gone now). Rose answered something like "No, <B>not likely</B>" She just can't bring herself to answer the question without a qualifier, a qualifier which shows that her bottom-line answer to the question Dave asked is actually "yes". She blatantly straddled the fence on what is the single most important doctrine in evangelical Christianity. We can be wrong on a lot of doctrine, and agree to disgree, but if we get the doctrine of salvation wrong then what's the point? This is something BW himself has hammered home and is one of the things I CREDIT him for making clear to me... that we have GOT to be certain of the content of salvation in order to have assurance of salvation. If we aren't certain of the content, we can never be certain. Uncertainty is a recipe for doubt, so we can't afford to be ambiguous in our language regarding this most important thing.<BR/><BR/>Rose's recent statement to WJC at UoG mocks such certainty -- "we should leave the results to God." Does Rose have such a dim view of inspiration that she thinks it's reasonable to suggest that God was unclear in proclaiming the content of salvation such that all we can do is preach the message and then hope for the best??? Further, she suggests (yet again) that it's just theory... but assurance of salvation for my sons is most certainly NOT a theory. And how is assurance for the guy in "Bora Bora" a theory? It's certainly not theoretical to him!! :-) The assurance of my OWN salvation is not theory either. So, uhm, what exactly is "theory" about this to her? Jeremy Myers understood this, yet in Rose's view the best I can do is tell my son what I think is necessary and then hope for the best. Uhm, what? I don't think God is so cruel as to dangle everlasting life in front of our eyes, even sacrificing his own son to provide it, and then leave us uncertain of how to claim that gift with certainty. One thing I thank BW for is pointing out that that kind of reasoning doesn't make any sense.<BR/><BR/>BTW, looking forward to your article detailing the changes in the GES SoF over the years. I recall that Greg made some excellent observations about this when we pointed out the differences quite some time ago. I think it was in the comments thread and don't recall which article it was under, perhaps you do?Orangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13385339200643211924noreply@blogger.com