tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post6201112303943488128..comments2024-02-27T03:28:22.684-06:00Comments on In Defense of the Gospel: Evaluation & Response to “Crossless” Theology, Part #5Lou Martuneachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-13975443020709069122008-02-27T18:46:00.000-06:002008-02-27T18:46:00.000-06:00Dear Guests:A man named Gordon has been interactin...Dear Guests:<BR/><BR/>A man named Gordon has been interacting with me at Rose's blog. I never met him until today. I think the following fits here and so I include it.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Dear Gordon:<BR/><BR/>You wrote, “<I>To try to connect this to New Evangelicalism is a bit of a reach in my opinion</I>.”<BR/><BR/>Compromise with known and vital error is compromise of the biblical mandates that forbid it. That is the New Evangelical mindset.<BR/><BR/>I have not interacted with you much, but with Rose many, many times in the blogs and in e-mails. Until recently, I was under the impression that she rejected the Crossless gospel. Today, with her acknowledging she finds the Crossless gospel teaching of Hodges acceptable, I am no longer under that impression.<BR/><BR/>Now I have to rethink this.<BR/><BR/>Rose has embraced Hodges’ view as an acceptable interpretation of the Gospel. So, she is (and has been acting for months as) more of an advocate for (<I>at the very least a sympathizer with</I>) the egregious errors, than a believer who recognizes it as a false gospel, but will not separate from its advocates.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-11712039128973320502008-02-27T17:23:00.000-06:002008-02-27T17:23:00.000-06:00Rose:Your response above confirms that you have in...Rose:<BR/><BR/>Your response above confirms that you have indeed come to accept the Zane Hodges <I>Crossless</I> interpretation of the Gospel.<BR/><BR/>That is all I wanted to know.<BR/><BR/>This does much to explain your passionate support for and defense of the teaching and especially the advocates of the <I>Crossless</I> gospel.<BR/><BR/>Thank you,<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-78713348958798903162008-02-27T11:18:00.000-06:002008-02-27T11:18:00.000-06:00Hi Lou.Here is my answer. I will also post this a...Hi Lou.<BR/>Here is my answer. I will also post this answer on my blog in the comments after you clarify what you mean about "disobedient." I really hope you will do that and not avoid giving me the clarification that I really want on that one point. I want to understand how you are using that word "disobedient".<BR/><BR/>________________________<BR/><BR/>Do I consider Antonio's and Matthew's position an “acceptable interpretation of the Gospel?”<BR/><BR/>Yes, with qualifications. I accept that they have provided Scripture to back up their position. They are not arguing from tradition or psychology, but they provide examples in the Bible of believers who had not experienced the knowledge of the cross and resurrection and yet these people were provided with Christ's gift. I have called this 'dispensational confusion' before and it may well be, but must I conclude that their insistence 'unacceptable interpretation of the gospel’? I was reminded, when I was thinking about this yesterday of the word 'gospel' that is also used by the angels to the Shepherds upon the incarnation: <I>"Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you [good tidings] of great joy which will be to all people. 11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord."</I><BR/><BR/>Just the message of His birth was the 'gospel' to those who did not know about the cross yet - or even any of the miracles. Jesus Christ is good news! Matthew and Antonio are saying that someone may believe in Jesus Christ without understanding what He did to obtain the eternal life that He offers. They also allow for gaps in understanding Who He is.<BR/><BR/>I once told you in a very long questioning by you at my blog that I believed a person who was reading through the gospel of John and never got to the passion narrative but believed the Lord for his own salvation would be saved. You asked me if I thought that this was the 'normative' way people are saved these days... and I said no, but it is an exception. So yes, in that respect, I suppose that I would say the "crossless" idea that someone may be saved without hearing of the cross/ress could be saved by placing his faith in Jesus. I already said this, if you remember.<BR/><BR/>Clarification: If someone was teaching that we should <I>avoid</I> talking about the cross when trying to bring people to faith in Jesus, because people may not understand it, then I would not find that acceptable. If they were saying that someone who DENIES that the cross and ressurection ever took place should be told that they can still trust in the One who died on the cross, then I think I have made it clear that I do not find that acceptable. <BR/><BR/>You yourself have acknowledged that these brothers you call "crossless" are not <I>avoiding</I> talking about the cross and that they are not considering those who deny the cross or resurrection (at their times of visitation) converts.<BR/><BR/>The deity issue - do I think Matthew and Antonio have an acceptable interpretation of the gospel in regards to the deity of Christ? If I ask myself is it possible that one could trust Christ without acknowledging that He is God, I have been looking at the sermons in ACTS. I notice that Peter talks about Jesus as a man when he calls on people to believe in Him, never saying that Christ is God. The apostles use language like "God has made this man, Jesus, both Lord and Christ." Antonio finds this as a model that when speaking to people, he may use similar language as the apostles. I am not convinced that this is the best way, but I have to recognize that he is using a biblical argument and therefore, he may have an acceptable (your word) approach here.<BR/><BR/>I have been convinced that no one WILL believe in Christ for anything eternal if they don't understand that He is eternal. I still hold to this. Does this mean that someone who doesn't hold to this because of his own look at the Bible is "unacceptable"?<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, as I have said again and again, this is theory. We are not talking about what they do in evangelism, as you have also said. They tell the lost the same thing I do. We are talking about what they "believe the lost must believe" (your words) So if they differ from me in what they theorize the lost must believe about what we are both telling the lost, does this mean I can charge them with an 'unacceptable' understanding of the gospel? Not.<BR/><BR/>That doesn't mean that their views are the same as mine, but are they 'acceptable' you ask? I have to consider that they may very well be.Rose~https://www.blogger.com/profile/14906854078623897422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-74442427623811111322008-02-27T10:35:00.000-06:002008-02-27T10:35:00.000-06:00Rose:At your blog you promised an answer to this q...Rose:<BR/><BR/>At your blog you promised an answer to this question. However, you have for several days been unwilling to answer it at your blog. <BR/><BR/>At your blog I invited you to answer it here. This removes any reason for not be willing to address this question. The way is now clear for you to reply to my question.<BR/><BR/><B>Do you consider the Zane Hodges (Wilkin, da Rosa, Matthew) interpretation of the Gospel, (including Antonio viewing a lost man’s unbelief about the deity of Jesus and His finished work as mere “<I>misconceptions</I>” to be “<I>put on the back burner</I>” and left there) an acceptable interpretation of the Gospel?</B><BR/><BR/>Will you state one way or the other if the Hodges, Wilkin, da Rosa, Matthew interpretation of the gospel is, in your opinion, an acceptbale interpretation of the Gospel?<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-16668968414852961202008-02-24T20:29:00.000-06:002008-02-24T20:29:00.000-06:00Man I heard an excellent message by J Vernon McGee...Man I heard an excellent message by J Vernon McGee on BBN radio today about the offensive message of the cross that causes division. There is no doubt in my mind that Antonio and Matthew are teaching a false gospel by saying it is unessasary to make God known in dying for us there at the cross. God died for us. Greater love has no man than this. I strongly reject Matthew and Antonios subtle teachings that are going to send many people to hell. It is unfortunate that others will pay for the sin of believers who compromise the truth. Antonio and Matthew will be saved, but in teaching a false gospel they will lose so much in the fires of the judgment seat of Christ. What a tragic thing to sift away at the gospel message.<BR/><BR/>Grace upon grace,<BR/><BR/>BrianOnly Lookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16074543462279905793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-145248275471418132008-02-24T06:04:00.000-06:002008-02-24T06:04:00.000-06:00Rose:I asked you earlier if you recognize the Zane...Rose:<BR/><BR/>I asked you earlier if you recognize the Zane Hodges <I>Crossless</I> interpretation of the Gospel as a false Gospel?<BR/><BR/><B>Will you state one way or the other</B> if the Hodges, Wilkin, da Rosa, Matthew interpretation of the gospel is, in your opinion, an acceptbale interpretation of the Gospel?<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-62527027582862444712008-02-24T06:00:00.000-06:002008-02-24T06:00:00.000-06:00Brian:You wrote, "These are very dangerous sympath...Brian:<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "<I>These are very dangerous sympathies that Matthew and Antonio are considering and that Rose is wanting to open up credence to, but not clearly coming out and defying it and pointing out the danger as she does in the Lordship camp</I>." <BR/><BR/>The teachings of Hodges, which men like and Antonio and Matthew have adopted, are dangerous.<BR/><BR/>As for Rose, she has obviously chosen loyalty to friendship with Antonio and Matthew above fidelity to the Word of God when it comes to the difficult decision, but Bible mandate, to separate from these disobedient brethren who teach of a false Gospel. <BR/><BR/>She claims to have problems with the Crossless gospel. However, when it comes to taking an open, uncompromising stand against the egregious errors and its advocates, she is unwilling to do so.<BR/><BR/>IMO, although she claims to have concerns with the <I>CG</I>, they are for her minor and she views it as an acceptable interpretation of the Gospel. <BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-61374168900280658392008-02-24T03:20:00.000-06:002008-02-24T03:20:00.000-06:00Lou, I can categorically verify that Wilkin does n...Lou, I can categorically verify that Wilkin does not hold Faust's position.<BR/><BR/>Faust holds that believers who have fallen away will be cast into Gehenna during the Millennium and will be let out later.<BR/><BR/>Wilkin holds that all believers will be raptured and will be with the Lord during the Millennium, though believers who have fallen away will be denied inheritance and privilege in the kingdom.<BR/><BR/>The two positions are manifestly different.<BR/><BR/>God Bless<BR/><BR/>MatthewMatthew Celestinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02874430461346560520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-72149972490081565232008-02-23T11:08:00.000-06:002008-02-23T11:08:00.000-06:00To All:Can anyone verify whether or not Wilkin has...To All:<BR/><BR/>Can anyone verify whether or not Wilkin has ever categorically rejected Faust's position?<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-42369688470754846192008-02-23T11:06:00.000-06:002008-02-23T11:06:00.000-06:00Matthew:Maybe I wasn't clear. I am going to look i...Matthew:<BR/><BR/>Maybe I wasn't clear. I am going to look into whether or not Wilkin actually opposes Faust's views. Faust seems to think that they are not to very different. We'll see. That Wilkin appears unwilling to go on record against Faust's position is curious.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I'd be interested in your reaction to Greg Schliesmann's comment above. See 2/22 @ 10:52pm.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-20937840469348563772008-02-23T10:09:00.000-06:002008-02-23T10:09:00.000-06:00Lou"I am probably going to look into this a little...Lou<BR/>"I am probably going to look into this a little further."<BR/><BR/>I will be interested to read your thoughts.Matthew Celestinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02874430461346560520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-32188257596286263122008-02-23T09:51:00.000-06:002008-02-23T09:51:00.000-06:00Matthew:Name recognition should not matter. Wrong...Matthew:<BR/><BR/>Name recognition should not matter. Wrong is wrong! <BR/><BR/>Small fish can grow to become large predatory fish in the theological pond, just like Hodges and Wilkin grew to be with their <I>Crossless</I> gospel.<BR/><BR/>You and Antonio were sadly swallowed up by their teaching. Thankfully, the dangers of their teaching has been fully exposed and they are not going to be able to lead very many more astray as they once did.<BR/><BR/>Faust’s position is not totally unlike Hodges/Wilkin.<BR/><BR/>Believers need to be warned of this dangerous doctrine. One would think Wilkin would personally through his GES channels warn people in his sphere of influence if he (Wilkin) truly rejected Faust’s position.<BR/><BR/>I think Hodges/Wilkin would eagerly and publicly express their rejection of how far Faust has gone with the same foundational teaching on the Judgment Seat of Christ. Don't you?<BR/><BR/>I am probably going to look into this a little further.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-49782927587393010012008-02-23T09:24:00.000-06:002008-02-23T09:24:00.000-06:00"Last thing, if Wilkin is against Faust’s position..."Last thing, if Wilkin is against Faust’s position why doesn’t he say so?"<BR/><BR/>Faust? How many people have heard of him?<BR/><BR/>He is a pretty small fish in the theological ocean.Matthew Celestinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02874430461346560520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-19778754906406428332008-02-23T07:59:00.000-06:002008-02-23T07:59:00.000-06:00>They hold that the outer darkness and references ...>They hold that the outer darkness and references to fire in connection with the judgment seat are metaphorical.<<BR/><BR/>What a dangerous passage to encourage men to consider a metaphore. How tragic this is and how it puts the righteousness robe of Christ aside and exalts the unrighteous rags of man. How truly tragic that Hodges and Wilkin are misleading men in this area. Thankfully other free gracers like Charles Ryrie have not been beguiled here as Hodges and Wilkin have as they as well are sifting away at the sting in Scripture that God is using to grab mens attention so that they will be delivered from the lies of Satan and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. How truly unloving and un-nice Hodges and Wilkin are being.<BR/><BR/>Ryrie's comment on Matthew 22:13:<BR/>"Outer darkness- away from the lights of the wedding festivities. weeping and gnashing of teeth indicate extreme torment, as will be true in hell"<BR/>Ryrie Study Bible<BR/><BR/>To teach people otherwise is to hate them.<BR/><BR/>Grace upon grace,<BR/><BR/>BrianOnly Lookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16074543462279905793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-75834936455432771312008-02-23T07:56:00.000-06:002008-02-23T07:56:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Only Lookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16074543462279905793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-54250670839954464302008-02-23T07:40:00.000-06:002008-02-23T07:40:00.000-06:00Very well said Greg on the point about eternal lif...Very well said Greg on the point about eternal life. Buddhists believe that they have eternal life as well as New Agers in and through Jesus who is also manifested in other incarnations and Gods. Even Madonna is quoted as saying Jesus is exclusive, but holds the Kabbala view in Neo-Orthodox Judaism of a new age spirit from her Catholic past. They hinge greatly on the tree of life and draw the pagan views together that were spawned from the Garden of Eden and see oneness with the Father as they become the spirit of I Am and Jesus as well, but reject the veiw that he exclusivly came in the flesh as Jesus Christ alone and one and for all died on the cross to bring life through the cross alone.<BR/><BR/>These are very dangerous sympathies that Matthew and Antonio are considering and that Rose is wanting to open up creedence to, but not clearly coming out and defying it and pointing out the danger as she does in the Lordship camp.<BR/><BR/>The importance of this cannot be overestimated in my view as we see the day approaching and the falling away occuring right before our very eyes.<BR/><BR/>The buddhists and new agers believe that the Karmic debt will stop when the final incarnation meets with the tree of life and stops the continuation that you see in their yoga posture as they hold their fingers together in a circle of oneness.<BR/><BR/>The cross is a sword that must also peirce any sympathies that humanity can be reconciled to God through any other means. It is an offense to all of false religion as well as the sympathies that Matthew and Antonio are considering. Antonio once stated that his mother taught him that people can believe in other gods yet still believe that Jesus is the author of eternal life. When we have friends and family members that espouse views then because of the law of proximity we begin to entertain them and then the dangerous gangrene is given more spread. <BR/><BR/>Grace upon grace,<BR/><BR/>BrianOnly Lookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16074543462279905793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-63479890780455031362008-02-23T06:40:00.000-06:002008-02-23T06:40:00.000-06:00Matthew:Thanks for the links.I have not studied th...Matthew:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the links.<BR/><BR/>I have not studied their views enough to say a great deal, but I will say this: Wilkin has a pattern of ducking debates and not responding to legitimate inquiries.<BR/><BR/>We’ll never forget Wilkins’s clamoring for a debate on the <I>Crossless</I> gospel, but once Ron Shea accepted the challenge, Wilkin lost his nerve and at the same time very unwisely posted a statement that was very offensive toward Brother Shea. Within two hours of that posting, at the old GES blog, it was suddenly deleted without explanation.<BR/><BR/>I have several first hand reports of Wilkin refusing to respond to inquiries from FG pastors/teachers, from those men themselves. One venue cancelled a GES conference because Wilkin would NOT reply to some doctrinal questions the organizers had.<BR/><BR/>In a recent thread one friend of Wilkin said Bob is frustrated about the <I>Crossless</I> debates and that no one is talking to him (paraphrasing the comment). Truth is- he will not respond to or interact on the <I>Crossless</I> gospel. Wilkin is going to have another opportunity to meet privately to discuss his interpretation of the Gospel. IMO, based on his track record, he will refuse, but I hope to be wrong.<BR/><BR/>The FGA proposed a private academic meeting for 10 men, 5 from each of the opposing views to participate. The goal was to at least come to a better understanding. Wilkin was invited and he flat out refused to participate. Matter of fact, no one, including Hodges, would agree to attend.<BR/><BR/>Last thing, if Wilkin is against Faust’s position why doesn’t he say so?<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-31113300841563579282008-02-23T01:40:00.000-06:002008-02-23T01:40:00.000-06:00Lou, Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges have not responded...Lou, Bob Wilkin and Zane Hodges have not responded to Faust.<BR/><BR/>GES did publish a review of 'The Rod: Will God spare it?' by Laurence Vance.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.faithalone.org/journal/bookreviews/faust.htm" REL="nofollow">Review of The Rod: Will God spare it? by Laurence Vance</A><BR/><BR/>According to the Kingdom Baptist church website, Bob Wilkin refuses to allow Faust's book to be sold at GES conferences along with books that hold the Partial Rapture view. Faust claims he requested Bob Wilkin to debate him, but received no answer.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.kingdombaptist.org/kb2/index.cfm?filename=wilkin_ignores" REL="nofollow">ROBERT WILKIN (G.E.S.) IGNORES REPEATED REQUESTS FOR DEBATE</A><BR/><BR/>If you take the trouble to read Dillow, Wilkin and Hodges, it will be clear that there teaching differs on the subject from Faust. They hold that the outer darkness and references to fire in connection with the judgment seat are metaphorical.<BR/><BR/>Every Blessing in Christ<BR/><BR/>MatthewMatthew Celestinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02874430461346560520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-34372081422806876982008-02-22T23:11:00.000-06:002008-02-22T23:11:00.000-06:00Hello Greg:Thanks for stopping by and posting your...Hello Greg:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for stopping by and posting your succinct and penetrating comment. <BR/><BR/>I will always draw from your many articles and comments that appear at my blog to deal with the <I>Crossless</I> interpretation of the Gospel.<BR/><BR/>You have a God-given gift that has been a helpful and valuable resource in not just exposing, but biblically answering the heretical, egregious errors and faulty arguments coming from the advocates of the<I>Crossless</I> interpretation of the Gospel.<BR/><BR/>Please come again. I’ll have more tomorrow<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-81655287393078527212008-02-22T22:52:00.000-06:002008-02-22T22:52:00.000-06:00Lou, I happened to surf on by and scroll down to t...Lou, I happened to surf on by and scroll down to the bottom and see you quoted me above.<BR/><BR/>In respect to that issue, we should also point out that many sub-points are also required in the crossless gospel view. For example, what is eternal life? I've used this phrase with several individuals of various cultures who wondered what it meant.<BR/><BR/>Some people might think it means that you'll live forever in the normal sense of the word. Some people might think it means you'll become morphed into the universe. Some people think it means you live on through your children. Do you receive "eternal life" if you believe "Jesus" guarantees any of these things?<BR/><BR/>Some crossless advocates have rephrased it to "eternal well-being". What does that mean? Does that mean "eternal bliss?" If so, I haven't received it yet. There are days that I am not "well".<BR/><BR/>So In what sense do I have eternal well-being? Well, I have a permanently reconciled relationship to God in Christ. That is how John uses the phrase "eternal life" in the Gospel of John. So if crossless advocates believe a person must believe in Jesus for "eternal life" in the sense John uses it, this point requires subpoints--the same sort of subpoints of our position CLG proponents criticize.<BR/><BR/>I also noticed in the conversations that Matthew (dyspraxic fundamentalist) and Antonio have made a mockery out of 2Cor. 11:4--<I>"For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached...</I><BR/><BR/>Their argument in regards to this verse blatantly amounts to a denial of the verse. Their argument is essentially that there is no such thing as "another Jesus". <BR/><BR/>The only argument they have really proposed, as far as I have seen, is that there are many identifying features of Jesus Christ---so how do we know which falsities would amount to "another Jesus"? <BR/><BR/>All the arguments Matthew has raised would only be legitimate if one of two things were true: 1) Paul was talking about different literal, historical people name "Jesus" walking around, or 2) by "another Jesus", Paul simply meant a concept of "Jesus" which does not involve the guarantee of eternal life. But is anybody so deceived to argue that by "another Jesus" in 2Cor. 11:4, Paul simply referred to either of these two things?<BR/><BR/>If not, Matthew's arguments are a simply a smoke screen. Maybe it's true--this verse raises some difficult questions. Which features are essential in identifying the true Jesus? If this question is a difficulty of our position (as crossless proponents argue), it's a legitimate difficulty raised by this verse.<BR/><BR/>Whether or not it's difficult, the crossless arguments don't even attempt to answer them or explain this verse in any meaningful way. The verse still clearly teaches that there are essential features that identify the true Jesus--and if these features are neglected or falsified you have "another Jesus". <BR/><BR/>Crossless advocates don't want to explain this verse--they only want to scare us from using it because it disproves their whole heresy.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627415936514319391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-46558326630198205362008-02-22T18:22:00.000-06:002008-02-22T18:22:00.000-06:00Dear Guests:I noted earlier how Matthew is fishing...Dear Guests:<BR/><BR/>I noted earlier how Matthew is fishing for a “<I>checklist</I>”. This afternoon I came across the follow from Greg Schliesmann’s article, <I><B><A HREF="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/08/false-paradigms-of-crossless-gospel-2.html" REL="nofollow">False Paradigms of the Crossless Gospel, Part 2.</A></B></I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Antonio da Rosa confuses essentials truths about Jesus as individual objects of faith. He says, “<I>The ‘Majority’ position states that one must believe A, B, C, D, E, and F to be saved…The majority position requires that these things be believed. If they are believed, they are objects of faith. And if they are required, then they become co-conditions to ‘believing in Christ’</I>.”<BR/><BR/>It is not clear how da Rosa avoids his own accusation. <BR/><BR/>In his book <I>Secure and Sure</I>, Bob Wilkin has a section titled “<I>Three Essentials</I>.” He says Jesus “<I>routinely communicated three things. We, too, must share those three elements. They are: 1. believing 2. in Jesus 3. for eternal life</I>.” <BR/><BR/>Notice how Wilkin enumerates these three essentials exactly as da Rosa enumerated the essentials of our view. If we have five objects of faith, then by his own definition, da Rosa has three objects of faith. <BR/><BR/>Da Rosa may argue his three essentials can be put into one sentence or one proposition, but so what? So can ours.Lou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-88985855294599134632008-02-22T18:20:00.000-06:002008-02-22T18:20:00.000-06:00Yes Matthew, I trust GES has some balance on the L...Yes Matthew, I trust GES has some balance on the Lake of Fire. I was somewhat tongue-in-cheek on that one. I am also aware of and shocked by the absurd extremes coming from Faust. <BR/><BR/>Can you provide a link to writings from Hodges and Wilkin where they categorically reject Faust’s teaching on this? I have not researched this too deeply or read anything from either of them that refutes Faust. <BR/><BR/>Until I read a flat out rejection of Faust I am giving benefit of the doubt, but the jury is still out on whether not Hodges and Wilkin do not share in or are sympathetic to Faust’s position.<BR/><BR/>So, send me some documentation, if you please.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/><BR/>LM<BR/><BR/><B><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guppy" REL="nofollow">Guppies</A></B>Lou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-11826423613191604062008-02-22T16:11:00.000-06:002008-02-22T16:11:00.000-06:00Lou, GES holds that believers posess eternal life....Lou, GES holds that believers posess eternal life. Going to the Lake of Fire is not compatible with posessing eternal life.<BR/><BR/>Joe D Faust of Kingdom Baptist Church, an individual unconnected with GES holds that believers may be in hell or Hades during the Millennium, but not the Lake of Fire. However, his views are not shared by Bob Wilkin, Zane Hodges or Joseph Dillow. <BR/><BR/>Every Blessing in Christ<BR/><BR/>MatthewMatthew Celestinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02874430461346560520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-17021679709820301912008-02-22T15:10:00.000-06:002008-02-22T15:10:00.000-06:00Matthew:You wrote, "I think it is difficult to ima...Matthew:<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "<I>I think it is difficult to imagine how an universalist could believe in the lake of fire as most of us FGers do</I>."<BR/><BR/>I imagine the GES faction might possibly conceive of a believer at the "<I>punitive</I>" Judgment Seat of Christ headed for the Lake of Fire.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-41495269900574552772008-02-22T14:37:00.000-06:002008-02-22T14:37:00.000-06:00Matthew,Indeed.Matthew,<BR/><BR/>Indeed.Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.com