tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post4973260762538637529..comments2024-02-27T03:28:22.684-06:00Comments on In Defense of the Gospel: FGA Executive Counsel’s Official StatementLou Martuneachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-6972882266120473112008-03-14T10:07:00.000-05:002008-03-14T10:07:00.000-05:00Dear Fred:I want to thank you for visiting my blog...Dear Fred:<BR/><BR/>I want to thank you for visiting my blog and interacting with my guests and me. I’m sure I can speak for all of us when I say that we genuinely appreciate it.<BR/><BR/>There are many good comments from my guests about the official statement just issued from the current FGA executive counsel. My guests have identified what are glaring problems with the statement in its present form.<BR/><BR/>It is impossible to pick just one of the many fine comments to reiterate, but I’ll go with Stephen from 3/13/2008 11:57 AM.<BR/><BR/>He wrote, “<I>How can defining the gospel not be part of our focus? Rachel rightly observed that we have said ‘believers are called to preach the gospel’ and our FAQ #1 says ‘The FGA is seeking to unite leaders, churches, and organizations which affirm the gospel of grace.’ <BR/><BR/>How can we unite anyone around ‘the gospel of grace’ if we don’t have a consistent definition of what that is to base that unity on? i.e. if I think ‘the gospel of grace’ is the saving message and someone else thinks it’s ‘the entire bible’ or ‘any good news’ then our unity would be in word only, but not practice</I>.”<BR/><BR/>I trust the FGA’s official statement will be up for additional review and serious revision to include a clear, uncompromised Bible based definition of the Gospel, and that the Gospel must be believed for the reception of eternal life. <BR/><BR/>At present the <B>FGA is asking believers to ignore a major doctrinal difference</B> on the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the sake of an appearance of unity. There is no biblical precedent for such, which I consider an unholy alliance.<BR/><BR/>The following appears in my book, <I><B>In Defense of the Gospel</B></I>, which I believe captures a major component of what we are discussing.<BR/><BR/>“<I>When people are converted and receive a love of the truth, they are baptized into a body that has an inherent organic unity. Jesus Christ prayed in John 17 for a unity that came to pass at Pentecost. And every person who is baptized into Christ is in union. The unity is God and Spirit created. There is no unity to be created, the unity is there. It is only a unity that is to be maintained. Those who teach contrary to the body of revealed truth that is the center of this unity, they are the ones who create the divisions and create the stumbling blocks</I>.” (Dr. Mark Minnick: <I>The Scriptural Response to Teachers of Doctrinal Error</I>. A sermon recorded November, 1997. See p. 214.)<BR/><BR/>As long as <I>Crossless</I> gospel advocates like <B>Stephen Lewis, Jim Johnson and Antonio da Rosa</B> remain in FGA membership, which they joined <B>by twisting the Covenant’s “<I>obvious meaning</I>”</B> to suit their <I>Crossless</I> theology, there can never be genuine unity. <BR/><BR/>The “<I>contrary doctrine</I>” of the <I>Crossless</I> gospel is the reason for and cause of “<I>divisions and offences</I>” in the body of Christ and in the FGA. I am <B>guardedly optimistic</B> about and am praying for the advocates of the <I>Crossless</I> gospel to depart from the FGA so that the purity the Gospel and unity of like-minded believers will be restored and maintained.<BR/><BR/>With God’s help and direction I want to do all that I can to further the cause of Christ. <B>I will do whatever I can to nurture and encourage the FGA to courageously state and stand for the truth of the Gospel, and resist all who are tearing it down through the reductionist methods of Zane Hodges & Bob Wilkin.</B><BR/><BR/>Finally, thank you for speaking to me on the phone yesterday afternoon. I enjoyed the fellowship around the Bible. In my opinion, it was profitable as we shared a time of iron sharpening (<B>Proverbs 27:17</B>).<BR/><BR/>God bless you and you seek to honor God, His Word, and the precious Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Lou Martuneac<BR/><BR/>PS: I will be posting some follow up articles for additional discussion of this issue in the days ahead. Please consider yourself welcome to visit, read and comment at my blog whenever you like.Lou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-38203509725385996502008-03-13T22:36:00.000-05:002008-03-13T22:36:00.000-05:00Stephen & All,I want to say how much I appreciate ...Stephen & All,<BR/><BR/>I want to say how much I appreciate your spirited, but overall gracious tone in this discussion.<BR/><BR/>There are two final things I think I can contribute to this thread.<BR/><BR/>The FIRST is that I was in on the FGA Board meeting last October, but I was not at the meeting where this recent statement was formed. That said, I can tell you from my viewpoint, the FGA Board has made a great united stride in being willing to address this issue at all (they've wanted to stay out of the fray and focus on encouraging free gracers). Furthermore, they have made a great step in clearly affirming the cross and resurrection are vital in communicating the gospel. Again, I see this from where they were to where they have come...and I have personally congratulated them in this regard.<BR/><BR/>SECOND, the reason the FGA isn't focused on 'defining' the gospel is that we are seeking to build the Alliance on a Covenant rather than a doctrinal statement. We aren't focused on getting our doctrine exact (like a church must); instead, we wanted to establish a basis for membership. Our hope was that the Covenant offered enough in the way of doctrinal parameters & objective criteria to gather in the right members. I still think this is the wise course...it just awaits the maturing of the Alliance to affirm the true meaning of it's own Covenant.<BR/><BR/>Hope this helps a bit, though I know it isn't exactly what you might want just now.<BR/><BR/>I'd cherish your prayers in these matters!<BR/><BR/>God bless,<BR/><BR/>Fred LybrandDr. Fred R. Lybrandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03236228911080466523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-39085595506345991802008-03-13T21:38:00.000-05:002008-03-13T21:38:00.000-05:00Hello Greg:The FGA statement, in its present form,...Hello Greg:<BR/><BR/>The FGA statement, in its present form, is just as “<I>troubling</I>” for me.<BR/><BR/>I do want to mention a few things I have been pondering:<BR/><BR/>1) You and I have both seen time and again how the <I>Crossless</I> advocates twist and redefine terms and meanings to avoid making a clear, unvarnished statement as to exactly they believe. I have little respect left, if any, for these men because of not only their egregious doctrinal errors, but their gamesmanship as well. If any of my employees were to play the games these professing Christians do with me or my guests, I’d terminate them immediately. My staff is made up of unsaved businessmen and they do not pull the stunts these <I>Crossless</I> advocates do.<BR/><BR/>2) This a statement and while “<I>official</I>” I don’t believe it carries the weight and force that the FGA’s Covenant and Affirmation does.<BR/><BR/>3) If the current statement were to become the frame work for defining or revising the Covenant by which men can join or remain in the FGA, the alliance is finished.<BR/><BR/>4) If the FGA leadership cannot state and stand by the fact that, “<I>Scripture clearly teaches that the lost must believe the Gospel to be saved</I>” there is no reason for the FGA to exist.<BR/><BR/>5) I am giving temporary, guarded benefit of the doubt on where this will wind up. I am praying that truth and righteousness will prevail.<BR/><BR/>God bless you,<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-70317820063453800832008-03-13T20:17:00.000-05:002008-03-13T20:17:00.000-05:00I think Stephan made some good points when he said...I think Stephan made some good points when he said, <I>"How can defining the gospel not be part of our focus?"</I> and also:<BR/><BR/><I>"the specific statement being discussed here [the "Executive Council" statement on the main post] somewhat undermines our covenant by establishing a written precedent that distinguishes "what the lost must believe" from "what the gospel is." </I><BR/><BR/>Having read this more carefully, I'm going to be more critical.<BR/><BR/>The statement <I>"believers are called to preach the gospel, not the minimum"</I> is extremely troubling because there it gives the false impression that there is some "minimum" less than the gospel by which the lost can be saved. Scripture clearly teaches that the lost must believe the gospel to be saved (2Thes. 1:8-10; 1Cor. 1:17-21; 4:15; 2Cor. 4:3-4; ect.)<BR/><BR/>This statement is exactly the type of thing crossless advocates say to avoid controversy. It appears to be written either by a crossless advocate or a group of so-called "free grace leaders" who cannot agree with the Scripturally obvious fact that the lost must believe the gospel to be saved. There is no excuse for this pathetic statement. It is a shame.<BR/><BR/>-- GregGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-28541370164218964402008-03-13T19:43:00.000-05:002008-03-13T19:43:00.000-05:00Your welcome brother Lou. God is using you in migh...Your welcome brother Lou. God is using you in mighty way and may he continue to do so as you hold fast the only truth that is to be taught that God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. It is all there in black and white. There is no other truth to be received. Hallelujah for the blessed beloved friends of the cross.<BR/><BR/>"Jesus keep me near the cross, there a precious fountain, free to all a healing stream flows from Calvarys mountain."<BR/><BR/>And may all who believe this to be so be blessed as you are under the beloved blessings of Abraham.<BR/><BR/>Grace upon grace,<BR/><BR/>BrianOnly Lookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16074543462279905793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-43141757548265290962008-03-13T17:26:00.000-05:002008-03-13T17:26:00.000-05:00Brian:Thnaks for sharing your thoughts.This is an ...Brian:<BR/><BR/>Thnaks for sharing your thoughts.<BR/><BR/>This is an important discussion and I appreciate how Brother Fred Lybrand and my blog guests are interacting on this issue.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-8822315843300625042008-03-13T16:59:00.000-05:002008-03-13T16:59:00.000-05:00These are wonderful comments brethren. How I rejoi...These are wonderful comments brethren. How I rejoice to see men and women holding fast to the cross. What a blessing this is.<BR/><BR/>It concerns me that we not always seem to be thought provoking instead of cross provoking. While being thought provoking is a good thing, it is not so good when the cross is not fully considered to be the root of the gospel message and the whole purpose of revelation of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.<BR/><BR/>Let us be cross provoking above all else, lest we fall into the tmeptation of exalting thought provocation over our precious Saviour and His beloved work of redemption for Greeks seek wisdom, but we must needs preach Christ crucified which is a stumbling block to wisdom that often only serves to puff up.<BR/><BR/>Grace upon grace,<BR/><BR/>BrianOnly Lookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16074543462279905793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-77946490782865374862008-03-13T14:28:00.000-05:002008-03-13T14:28:00.000-05:00Stepehn:These are all vaild and important points y...Stepehn:<BR/><BR/>These are all vaild and important points you raise.<BR/><BR/>Until the FGA decides to align its official statement/position with the "<I>intended meaning</I>" of their Covenant, and stand behind it, as well as define the Gospel message that must be believed by the lost to be born again (justification), there cannot be unity.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-23036136849371790072008-03-13T12:57:00.000-05:002008-03-13T12:57:00.000-05:00fred said:"We did not set up a definition of the G...fred said:<BR/>"We did not set up a definition of the Gospel because it isn't part of our focus (though it is very important)"<BR/><BR/>How can defining the gospel not be part of our focus? Rachel rightly observed that we have said "believers are called to preach the gospel" and our FAQ #1 says "The FGA is seeking to unite leaders, churches, and organizations which affirm the gospel of grace." How can we unite anyone around "the gospel of grace" if we don't have a consistent definition of what that is to base that unity on? i.e. if I think "the gospel of grace" is the saving message and someone else thinks it's "the entire bible" or "any good news" then our unity would be in word only, but not practice. I can agree that the FGA is not intended to be an authority on "all things theology" but certainly we should, and indeed seem obligated, to explicitly agree to definitions of at least the terms we are asking members to unify around.<BR/><BR/>As I read the covenant, points 1 to 5 lay an implicit foundation for the FGA's def. of "the gospel". I suggest, in the very interest of promoting our #1 point of unity, that we must move that out of the realm of the implicit and into the explicit. To not do is obviously fostering some confusion.<BR/><BR/>"for God is not a God of confusion but of peace" - 1 Cor 14:33<BR/><BR/>StephenOrangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13385339200643211924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-22560007777674259772008-03-13T11:32:00.000-05:002008-03-13T11:32:00.000-05:00Fred, thanks for your clarifications. I soundly ag...Fred, thanks for your clarifications. I soundly agree with the "goals" of the FGA as you stated them and am pleased at this point to formally join you in actually achieving those goals. I affirm the covenant and it's apparent "obvious meaning". I am persuaded however that the specific statement being discussed here somewhat undermines our covenant by establishing a written precedent that distinguishes "what the lost must believe" from "what the gospel is." I am thus glad that it "seem[s] curious" to you that "the gospel and the content of what saves is different"<BR/><BR/>StephenOrangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13385339200643211924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-10629087719019121112008-03-13T07:59:00.000-05:002008-03-13T07:59:00.000-05:00Fred:I know this goes without saying…Our motives a...Fred:<BR/><BR/>I know this goes without saying…<BR/><BR/>Our motives and goals here are not so much about saving or building organizations. Organizations come and they go.<BR/><BR/>The true goal is taking and presenting a clear uncompromised stand for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To biblically resist any assault on it whether it comes from infidels and skeptics on the outside, or termites on the inside.<BR/><BR/>If our goal is the proclamation and defense of the one true Gospel then we have all the resolve we need to take what biblical measures we must to fulfill our God given mandates to preach the Gospel to every creature (<B>Mark 16:15</B>) and contend for the faith once delivered (<B>Jude 3</B>).<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-87828382310989590742008-03-13T07:46:00.000-05:002008-03-13T07:46:00.000-05:00Good Morning Fred & Guests:I have just a moment an...Good Morning Fred & Guests:<BR/><BR/>I have just a moment and I want to hone in one just one portion of your comment above.<BR/><BR/>You wrote, “<I>The Covenant is clear, though I am reluctantly beginning to think that some may have joined without appreciating <B>the obvious meaning of our statement</B>. Others seem challenged to maintain the gracious tone we value</I>.”<BR/><BR/>Fred, it is my understanding that you wrote the <I><B><A HREF="http://www.freegracealliance.com/about_covenant.php" REL="nofollow">FGA Covenant and Affirmations</A></B></I>. It seems clear you had an “<I>obvious meaning</I>” in mind when you wrote them. I trust the men who adopted the Covenant had your meaning in mind when they endorsed it.<BR/><BR/>From the Covenant we can read Affirmations #2 & #3, they are:<BR/><BR/>2) <I><B>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</B></I>.<BR/><BR/>3) <I><B>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</B></I>.<BR/><BR/>You and the board at that time assumed men who would join the FGA would do so with the appreciation of the “<I>obvious meaning</I>” you and the board had in mind.<BR/><BR/>Affirmation #3, which when read in its context is requiring faith in the finished work of Christ as part of saving/justifying faith, not just sanctifying faith for one who is already born again.<BR/><BR/>This is clear from Affirmation #2 about justification, leading right into Affirmation #3 about what faith is, without any shift between points 2 and 3 from the subjects of justification to sanctification. <BR/><BR/>If I am wrong, if I have misunderstood what the “<I>obvious meaning</I>” of Affirmations #2 & #3 are, please say so now. <BR/><BR/>If you would take a clear stand and publicly state what the “<I>obvious meaning</I>” of Covenant (Affirmations #2 & #3) is, the men who joined without appreciating its meaning would have no choice but to graciously resign from the FGA because they do not agree with the “<I>obvious meaning</I>” of the Covenant. <BR/><BR/>Men in the FGA such as Stephen Lewis, Jim Johnson and Antonio da Rosa are committed to the <I>Crossless</I> interpretation of the Gospel. Their view is antithetical to the “<I>obvious meaning</I> of the Covenant. They cannot agree to the “<I>obvious meaning</I>” of the Covenant, and this is why they have twisted the interpretation, thus far with the FGA’s tacit approval.<BR/><BR/>You wrote, “<I>Our goal with the covenant was for it to allow room, but <B>not so much that that the errant extremes would feel comfortable joining</B></I>.”<BR/><BR/>Fred, advocates of the “<I>errant extremes</I>” have joined the FGA. <BR/><BR/>I want to ask and implore you to make a public statement, post it here in this thread or any public venue, what the “<I>obvious meaning</I>” of the FGA Covenant is.<BR/><BR/>You founded the FGA and I am sure you never envisioned that the FGA could be a home for men who passionately hold to the Zane Hodges <I>Crossless</I> interpretation of the Gospel, but this is what has transpired.<BR/><BR/>Take the lead, demonstrate clear, uncompromising leadership. Your clarifying and attaching specific meaning to the Covenant in unvarnished terms would settle the controversy swirling around the FGA.<BR/><BR/>Kind regards,<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-71586659218682469252008-03-13T07:40:00.000-05:002008-03-13T07:40:00.000-05:00Greg:You have a God-given gift for articulating do...Greg:<BR/><BR/>You have a God-given gift for articulating doctrine and these issues in a clear, concise way.<BR/><BR/>IMO, the FGA is tied up in bureaucratic wrangling, because of the <I>Crossless</I> gospel members of the FGA board, chief among them Stephen R. Lewis.<BR/><BR/>It is my hope and prayer that the FGA gets past diplomatic, compromising statements, and will be recovered from the slide into compromise with the advocates of the reductionist <I>Crossless</I> interpretation of the Gospel.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-3868915051224093952008-03-13T02:13:00.000-05:002008-03-13T02:13:00.000-05:00Lou, another point about this is something that Fr...Lou, another point about this is something that Fred Lybrand mentioned: <BR/><BR/><I>"The Covenant is clear, though I am reluctantly beginning to think that some may have joined without appreciating the obvious meaning of our statement. Others seem challenged to maintain the gracious tone we value."</I><BR/><BR/>It is true that their Covenant clearly states that the death and resurrection of Christ are essential to the gospel that the lost need to believe to be saved. Some dishonest rudiments such as Antonio da Rosa have twisted the clear meaning of the statement to mislead everybody that it is somehow compatible with his views.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that when you say something, it doesn't really mean anything unless you stand by it. For example, everybody knows that the "55 mph" speed limit sign does not mean "55 mph"--it means "65 mph". You won't get pulled over unless you go over 65.<BR/><BR/>It's the same with the FGA statement. They made the statement, but they don't enforce it or stand by it. Instead, they allow people who blatantly preach against it to join the organization and even sit on its board. According to da Rosa, Charlie Bing personally welcomes his membership. By not publicly standing against such people as da Rosa, Charlie Bing actually stands against the intent of his own statement.<BR/><BR/>It reminds me of President Bush proposing the border wall to stop illegals from Mexico--but it in actuality, he has done everything in his power to prevent it from being built. It's hypocritical. Unfortunately, the actions of Charlie Bing and every other member of the FGA who points to the Covenant yet welcomes fellowship with those who disagree is hypocritical in the same way.<BR/><BR/>Fred mentioned the actions of the FGA might be seen as a compromise. Well, there's no question about that--it is a compromise--and it's a compromise over the gospel.<BR/><BR/>-- GregGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-18002541254550191392008-03-13T01:39:00.000-05:002008-03-13T01:39:00.000-05:00Lou, in regards to the FGA statement: Even crossle...Lou, in regards to the FGA statement: Even crossless advocates agree that the death and resurrection of Christ should be proclaimed--so what's the point of the statement? There is none.<BR/><BR/>This statement leads me to suspect the people at the FGA felt pressured to put out some sort of statement--so they published this rather diplomatic statement for the interim until they can work out the bureaucratic elements that need to be in place for them to say what the true leadership of the FGA wants to say. The problem is the FGA has crossless people in its bureaucracy, so the pro-cross leaders are somewhat constrained in what they can say in the official FGA capacity. My expectation is that once they hold whatever future meetings they have on this, the pro-cross elements will prevail.<BR/><BR/>-- GregGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-60613793591225266772008-03-13T00:54:00.000-05:002008-03-13T00:54:00.000-05:00To All,I frankly believe the FGA has defined the g...To All,<BR/><BR/>I frankly believe the FGA has defined the gospel, in both the Covenant and the Statement...well, 'defined' within the boundaries of the purpose of the FGA.<BR/><BR/>When we formed the FGA our aim was to "Connect and Encourage Free Grace Leaders." We opted for a Covenant rather than a doctrinal statement. Our goal was to create some room for conversation as we wrestle through issues within the movement. Initially questions like 'repentence---what is it?' were in our minds. Could we provide an environment which we could discuss the views without being branded heretics?<BR/><BR/>Additionally, we wanted the 'people' to own the organization...so it was never the Fred Grace Alliance (FGA)! <BR/><BR/>Our goal with the covenant was for it to allow room, but not so much that that the errant extremes would feel comfortable joining. We also wanted to create a context in which members could be held accountable by being removed from membership by a vote of those within the FGA (not just one person or a board).<BR/><BR/>It is a new alliance, so we have yet to face some of these things as to an actual precedent. Of course, we'll eventually be there.<BR/><BR/>The Covenant is clear, though I am reluctantly beginning to think that some may have joined without appreciating the obvious meaning of our statement. Others seem challenged to maintain the gracious tone we value.<BR/><BR/>We did not set up a definition of the Gospel because it isn't part of our focus (though it is very important)...I do know, however, that Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin would not join the FGA for the specific reason that they both disagreed with a number of elements within the FGA Covenant. All of these issues were addressed at length...with the final result that we changed nothing in the FGA Covenant, and they did not join. The fact of the matter is that the FGA has no connection to GES...and positive it never will.<BR/><BR/>The Board is very hesitant to get in the habit of defining the great company of central and tangential doctrinal terms/issues.<BR/><BR/>This may be seen as compromise, but we hoped it is more about wisdom. The FGA was designed to be OUR alliance together...a place for connection and discussion.<BR/><BR/>The risk we have taken will inevitably allow some to briefly mis-align. Our hope is that those who mis-align themselves with us will quickly grow to affirm our statement or quickly exit once they understand. On occasion we will need to graciously work together to invite those who do not belong to move on from our convictions...which WE determine they do not share.<BR/><BR/>What could be greater for an Alliance? I so agree that the FGA is not a Church...it is intended to be an alliance (not a 'parachurch' either) in which we work together toward greater clarity and success in promoting the gospel of God's grace.<BR/><BR/>I believe we can get there, but I don't think we can get there in the next few minutes...nor can we get there without many of you who share the same hopes.<BR/><BR/>I write as a member without a current official role in the FGA. I still think you all should join in and help (jeepers...you can always quit at any time!) in these early stages; so long as you can sign the Covenant in good faith!<BR/><BR/>The FGA Executive Council has given out a statement that basically says:<BR/><BR/>1. The death and resurrection of Christ must always be presented when the Gospel is preached.<BR/><BR/>2. Some people vary about the minimal content of what saves.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me the FGA has just said to leave out the death & resurrection is to not proclaim the Gospel...and...if they proclaim the Gospel (with the death & resurrection), then the necessary content (regardless of one's view) is faithfully available to be believed. No real anathema (Galatians 1) here if they are preaching the Gospel (which the FGA Executive Counsel says must include the death & resurrection).<BR/><BR/>Now...why the Gospel and the content of what saves is different...does seem curious to me. Perhaps we can talk about it together at the Fall FGA Conference!<BR/><BR/>Grace upon grace,<BR/><BR/>Fred R. Lybrand<BR/><BR/>P.S. It's 12:50am...forgive any grammar / punctuation / spelling errors!Dr. Fred R. Lybrandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03236228911080466523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-52855628521230774082008-03-12T23:35:00.000-05:002008-03-12T23:35:00.000-05:00Hi Greg:I wondered if I might see you checking in ...Hi Greg:<BR/><BR/>I wondered if I might see you checking in on the FGA's statement.<BR/><BR/>Your insights are always helpful and penetrating.<BR/><BR/>Kind regards,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Lou<BR/><BR/>PS: Later this year I'm planning to do reruns of your earlier articles from 2007.Lou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-55723834539989551922008-03-12T23:00:00.000-05:002008-03-12T23:00:00.000-05:00Hi again Fred,Earlier in this thread I said:"I won...Hi again Fred,<BR/><BR/>Earlier in this thread I said:<BR/><BR/><I>"I wonder if perhaps the FGA plans to define what exactly they think is 'the gospel'? They state here that 'believers are called to preach <B>the gospel</B>', yet how can we be sure we are indeed preaching 'the gospel' if we don't know what exactly it is? It would seem that if the FGA thinks that all Christians are commanded to preach 'the gospel' (which I agree with), then it would behoove them to define what precisely 'the gospel' is."</I><BR/><BR/>Can you speak to that? Does the FGA plan to define "the gospel", especially since they are so strongly encouraging all Christians to preach "the gospel"?Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-39872309973099371632008-03-12T22:55:00.000-05:002008-03-12T22:55:00.000-05:00Hi Greg,It's always good to see comments from you,...Hi Greg,<BR/><BR/>It's always good to see comments from you, your thoughts are much appreciated.<BR/><BR/>I was going to say that John was addressing a heresy that Jesus wasn't human, but then I saw that you mentioned that. I understand what you are saying. I just think that his humanity is so universally accepted/acknowledged that it doesn't seem necessary to make it a specific point of belief. I wouldn't have a problem noting it specifically on a statement, it's not that I'm opposed to it. I just wouldn't have a need to push for it. But, you do have a point that it is specifically mentioned in Scripture. Perhaps you are right. I will think on it some more.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-67426094772671166012008-03-12T22:37:00.000-05:002008-03-12T22:37:00.000-05:00One last thing, Gene, that I think is most pertine...One last thing, Gene, that I think is most pertinent to this discussion, primarily because I think it explains why you and others are asking these questions.<BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><BR/><I>"For if it is shown that you or others do not hold to basic principles of Free Grace theology, it may be moot for you and others to criticize an organization that you do not hold fundamental principles with."</I><BR/><BR/>Surely upon rereading this sentence you can see the error. We cannot criticize an organization unless we agree fundamentally with its principles? Perhaps you should let the GES know that so they can stop criticizing MacArthur & Co. As I said above, I am uncertain as to whether I am FG or not, or "how much" FG I am. But even if I was totally anti-FG, I would have just as much right to criticize whatever views I think the FGA or anyone else holds.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, I maintain that lost people <I>must</I> believe in the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus for salvation from their sins and eternal life. Regardless of my stand on FG/LS, I do not want to see ANY organization promoting a "gospel" that is less than that. Therefore, I submit that whether or not I hold to basic principles of FG theology is what is moot here. We are all free to question and critique the views of any person or organization.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-1604062407196117632008-03-12T22:31:00.000-05:002008-03-12T22:31:00.000-05:00My sentence that read "though it seems obvious to ...My sentence that read "though it seems obvious to us that Jesus was human" should more accurately say "though it seems obvious to us that Jesus is human".Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-79720588092694899352008-03-12T22:25:00.000-05:002008-03-12T22:25:00.000-05:00Rachel, I haven't read all the comments in this th...Rachel, I haven't read all the comments in this thread but I happened to notice your comment regarding the humanity of Jesus comprising an essential element of the gospel.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you, that his humanity is implied in the fact the gospel centers on a Person and the fact this Person died. I disagree with your conclusion that since this implication is already obvious to us, we shouldn't identify His humanity as an essential element to the gospel.<BR/><BR/>The reason this must be identified as an essential element of Christ's identity in terms of what the lost believe (or in Whom the lost must believe) for salvation is because Scripture specifically points this out.<BR/><BR/>John specifically points out that this is an essential element in identifying the true Jesus (1John 2:22; 4:3; 2John 7). And so, even though it seems obvious to us that Jesus was human (and normally the challenge in evangelism is convincing the lost of His deity, not His humanity), the fact remains that this element is essential to the gospel, Satan attacks it, and it is possible for someone to get wrong.<BR/><BR/>The relationship between 1John 2:22 and 4:3 (and also John 20:31) is interesting, especially viewed with the backdrop of historical clues to the heresy John countered.<BR/><BR/>It seems some gnosticesque false teachers distinguished between "Jesus" (i.e., the person) and "the Christ" (which they spoke of as an immaterial spirit). I've already posted quotes from Irenaeus where he spells this out as a heresy contradicted by John's writings. They taught that the "Christ spirit" indwelled "Jesus" during His earthly life and left before His death. <BR/><BR/>And so, I believe John 20:31, 1John 2:22, 4:3, and 2John 7 are really touching on this same point -- the lost must believe that Jesus (i.e., the person who died) is Himself the Christ. Someone cannot be saved by believing upon a non-incarnate Christ.<BR/><BR/>If the Bible specifically points this out as an essential attribute in identifying the true personage of Jesus (cf. 2Cor 11:4), then it seems very clear to me that we should identify this truth when talking about what the lost must believe to be saved.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-39971951247535916622008-03-12T22:15:00.000-05:002008-03-12T22:15:00.000-05:00Lou,Not to derail this thread any more, but I did ...Lou,<BR/><BR/>Not to derail this thread any more, but I did want to very briefly address a couple of Gene's points from earlier.<BR/><BR/>First, Gene, I saw your 3 essential tenets of FG theology. However, there does not appear to be any official list of the essentials of FG theology. Rene Lopez mentioned in an article of his last year that FG theology has been pretty loosely defined and still lacks clear definition. Perhaps this debate will lead to more clarity. But my point is that I see no reason to accept <I>your</I> list of "essentials" of FG theology when there are many different lists, some which may include items that you might not agree with.<BR/><BR/>Beyond that, I will say that I am not sure what exactly I am. I know that I am not hard-core LS. But I read such a wide variety of theology from well-known and accepted FG theologians that I cannot say with certainty whether I am FG or not.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-22160082010211131332008-03-12T21:40:00.000-05:002008-03-12T21:40:00.000-05:00Hi Gene,I spent all my elementary and secondary ed...Hi Gene,<BR/><BR/>I spent all my elementary and secondary education in a Christian school. I had the same teacher for Bible from 8th-12th grades. I can remember watching a variety of John MacArthur videos throughout those 5 years, and I also remember hearing plenty in those classes about "easy believism". Then when I went to Bible college, there was some discussion of LS among the students, but nothing particular was stated either way from the professors (although we had to read a lot of Ryrie books, if that can be considered any kind of statement).<BR/><BR/>So I have "known" about the movement and the issues for many years now. Although I must say that I do not see how any of this is relevant. I am not sure how it matters how long I have known about the movement of "free grace theology".Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-54140373450432668642008-03-12T19:52:00.000-05:002008-03-12T19:52:00.000-05:00Your labor is bearing precious fruit. We continue ...Your labor is bearing precious fruit. We continue to pray about this very important matter. Such good statements from Kev and Rachel as well. She was spot on. I'll give it that she has more patience than I do. I decided to delete my first two comments responding to the condescending remarks made and the attempts to draw this discussion of track. The Lord is reminding me and He is good to do so.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace upon grace,<BR/><BR/>BrianOnly Lookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16074543462279905793noreply@blogger.com