tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post7054009732374670469..comments2024-02-27T03:28:22.684-06:00Comments on In Defense of the Gospel: J. B. Hixson: “Crossless” Advocates Have Gone too Far!Lou Martuneachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-63431859089954251362008-07-02T08:49:00.000-05:002008-07-02T08:49:00.000-05:00Hi Stephen:Looking forward to receiving my copy. ...Hi Stephen:<BR/><BR/>Looking forward to receiving my copy. I'll put you on a time line for reading, just don't beat me to it.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LouLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-80289472283865039222008-07-02T06:18:00.000-05:002008-07-02T06:18:00.000-05:00Just wanted to say that I ordered a copy from Amaz...Just wanted to say that I ordered <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Gospel-Wrong-J-Hixson/dp/1606470981/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214996896&sr=8-1" REL="nofollow">a copy from Amazon.com</A> a couple days ago -- expect it in the mail any day now. I'm good at ordering books, not so good at stepping away from the computer long enough to actually read them -- would appreciate some accountability on this.Orangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13385339200643211924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-14417750937711270102008-06-20T17:42:00.000-05:002008-06-20T17:42:00.000-05:00Rachel:Thanks for the extended note to Looker abov...Rachel:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the extended note to Looker above.<BR/><BR/>You wrote, “<I>I believe he (Lou) is simply saying that he wants their influence to be as reduced as possible because he thinks they are seriously wrong; not that their declining influence proves that they are seriously wrong</I>.”<BR/><BR/>That is accurate, but I will add one thought: The decline in membership demonstrates that there are a significant number of folks who believe the GES is “<I>seriously wrong</I>.” Wrong enough to separate from the GES over it.<BR/><BR/>BTW, published GES financials show that it is running at a loss. Furthermore, their published list of FG churches is also in steady decline.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-52586533996800718752008-06-20T15:39:00.000-05:002008-06-20T15:39:00.000-05:00Looker,One other thing, you said,If the GES shrank...Looker,<BR/><BR/>One other thing, you said,<BR/><BR/><I>If the GES shrank so much that it was no longer self-sustaining and closed up shop, it would be illogical to conclude that the closure occurred because what they taught was incorrect.</I><BR/><BR/>You are right, but I don't think that's what Lou was trying to say. Lou can speak for himself, of course, but it seemed to me that he was simply noting that the influence of the GES has waned signficantly recently, and he is backing that assertion up with evidence of declining membership numbers, lack of conferences, etc. I believe he is simply saying that he <I>wants</I> their influence to be as reduced as possible because he thinks they are seriously wrong; <I>not</I> that their declining influence proves that they are seriously wrong. Does that make sense?Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-76174714259957311522008-06-20T15:30:00.000-05:002008-06-20T15:30:00.000-05:00Looker,I'm not JP (obviously), but I hope you don'...Looker,<BR/><BR/>I'm not JP (obviously), but I hope you don't mind me sharing some of my answers to your questions - keeping in mind of course that JP may or may not agree with me.<BR/><BR/>You asked,<BR/><BR/><I>Particularly of interest, due to the terminology often used in the current controversy, is the question of whether the previous saving message was crossless?</I><BR/><BR/>In a word, yes. The reason for this is because the cross hadn't actually happened yet. Non-dispensationalists would probably answer "no" to your question, but that's not me (at least, not at the moment :-) ). W/o going too far down the road of discussing dispensationalism itself, there doesn't seem to be much (if any) evidence that the OT saints were told about the cross and rez. And it <I>does</I> seem evident that there were at least some aspects of God's future plan(s) that were kept a mystery from OT saints. So I do not find it problematic to say that the saving message was "crossless" before the cross actually happened. I do find it problematic to try to prove that Adam, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, etc. <B>as well as</B> ALL "saved" (if you will) OT saints knew and understood the cross and rez just as we do today, or even at all.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that even the "crossless" advocates agree that at least one thing has changed since OT times. I have yet to see a CG say that OT people were required to believe in <I>Jesus</I> before Jesus was alive. I think they would agree that OT saints were required to believe that God alone could/would grant believers eternal life, or perhaps that God would send a Messiah through whom believers could receive eternal life. But I don't think any of them has said (yet) that OT saints were required to know the name of Jesus and believe in him specifically (although I'm open to correction - Antonio once said something about OT saints being required to believe in a Messiah, <I>just like we do today</I>, which seemed to leave the door open for people today to deny that Jesus is the Messiah while still being born again - I questioned him on that and he never responded). So it would seem that even CG advocates would say that the saving message is different today than it was in the OT, in at least one way. Thus, the issue is not "is the saving message different", but "<I>in what way</I> is the saving message different".<BR/><BR/>Alvin, a CGer and a frequent commenter on pro-CG blogs, made a statement at one of their blogs recently that I actually agree with for the most part. (shock! ;-) ) He said, <I>"I believe the big crux of the problem is that these ones who are making the most noise over this don't believe that ALL sin has been taken care of. Thus they MUST get the cross in there, or your sin still seperates you from God. Zane just as you and I know that sin is no longer a barrier because the Lamb of God took it all away! The real issue is life! And that's where the Christ, the same content that the disciples believed MUST be believed. And that is summed up in 'simply believing Jesus for eternal life.'"</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with Alvin that this is a major turning point for this whole issue. If sin still separates the lost from God, it just makes sense that the lost would need to know about, understand, and accept the specific payment (now that it's actually been paid) for their sins in order for them to be forgiven and eternal life received. However, CGers claim that the lost are essentially "neutral" when it comes to sin. They say that all sin of every person was actually paid for at the cross, whether one believes in Jesus or is a total atheist - that all the people (believers AND unbelievers) no longer have any sin in their account, it's all been actually taken away. Yet, they say that people (for some reason) still don't have eternal life, despite not having any sin, therefore they need to believe in Jesus for that life. I can actually see that position. If you (general "you") think that all the lost need is eternal life, then why would they need to know about the cross and rez? According to such a view, the <I>only</I> problem is lack of eternal life, thus the <I>only</I> thing that is needed is a reception of eternal life.<BR/><BR/>However, my view is that the lost are "condemned already" and are still in their sins. Thus, it makes no sense to say that a person could be justified/forgiven of their sins while still being unaware of, or outright rejecting, the specific payment for their sins. I see it as all connected. We lack eternal life because our sins separate us from God. When we believe "the gospel", we acknowledge that our sin separates us from God, and accept the payment made on our behalf by Jesus. When we do this, we are granted eternal life. It's all part of the package.<BR/><BR/>So while I would say that before the cross, the saving message was indeed "crossless", I do think that the other components were there (besides the name of Jesus). I think that people needed to acknowledge that their sin separated them from God (this was strongly evident to the OT saints from the sacrificial system), that they were helpless to remedy the situation on their own, and that God would provide a way (divine Messiah) for them to be eternally reconciled to him.<BR/><BR/>Beyond that saving message and the more precise saving message that we have today (now that the events have actually happened), I cannot say for sure if there were any other saving messages. It seems to me that Adam realized his own sin, that it separated him from God, that he was helpless to do anything about it on his own, and that God would provide a way to be eternally reconciled to himself. So if the first man understood those things, then I would say that probably everyone since then was expected to at least know those things. This is the first time I've seen someone ask such a question, so I may not have thought everything through. :-) But for now I would say there has always been one saving message which has gotten more specific as time has gone on, more revelation has been given, and the actual events of the saving message have taken place.<BR/><BR/>I hope that this has made sense and I haven't rambled too much. :-)Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-48304499923571881682008-06-20T07:56:00.000-05:002008-06-20T07:56:00.000-05:00Looker:I do appreciate your interaction in this th...Looker:<BR/><BR/>I do appreciate your interaction in this thread, and the gracious tone. I believe you have posted in previous threads. <BR/><BR/>I expect civility from all my guests and provide the same tones to my guests. We can say difficult things charitably. <BR/><BR/>I do not want my blog to exhibit the kind of vitriol and ethical lapses that dominate some pro-<I>Crossless</I> gospel blogs.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for you comments. Feel free to visit and comment in any thread at your convenience.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-61719057610712023222008-06-20T07:54:00.000-05:002008-06-20T07:54:00.000-05:00Looker:You wrote, “As for the shrinkage of GES, wh...Looker:<BR/><BR/>You wrote, “<I>As for the shrinkage of GES, what of any substance can be said of that? Size makes no difference in regards to the truth or falsity of the doctrines GES promotes</I>.”<BR/><BR/>The “<I>truth or falsity</I>” of the GES <I>Crossless/Deityless</I> Gospel has been irrefutably settled through various articles and reviews over the past two years. It is a false, reductionist view that is a blight and open sore on evangelical community.<BR/><BR/>The current series by Pastor Rokser <I><B><A HREF="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2008/06/issue-of-incongruity-actual-or_19.html" REL="nofollow">The Issue of Incongruity</A></B></I> definitely nails the coffin shut on the issue. The <I>Crossless</I> gospel is non-saving, reduction view that is wholly antithetical to the Scriptures which they twist and reinvent to arrive at and hold the teachings of Zane Hodges together.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-25940326510765454742008-06-20T07:51:00.000-05:002008-06-20T07:51:00.000-05:00You wrote, “If the GES shrank so much that it was ...You wrote, “<I>If the GES shrank so much that it was no longer self-sustaining and closed up shop…</I>”<BR/><BR/>It is my hope and prayer that GES will one day cease to exist. That would go a long way to protecting any more unsuspecting believers from being deceived by the egregious errors of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin. <BR/><BR/>Their efforts to refute <I><B><A HREF="http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2006/11/lordships-submission-gospel.html" REL="nofollow">Lordship Salvation</A></B></I> have been negated by their slide in gross heresy. We have done a great deal to let many outside the FG camp know that the GES is a cell of theological extremists, that no longer speaks for or represents the FG community at large.<BR/><BR/>Even if GES can remain viable in some limited form, which I expect, their views have been fully exposed, thoroughly refuted from the Scriptures and a broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity have been alerted to their heretical views. This will make it very difficult for GES to enjoy much new success in spreading their views outside the churches and/or fellowships they have already infected with their egregious errors.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-82172321817117599952008-06-20T07:44:00.000-05:002008-06-20T07:44:00.000-05:00Looker:You wrote, “ Refining improves purity…” Cro...Looker:<BR/><BR/>You wrote, “<I> Refining improves purity…</I>” Crossless advocates like to refer to their view as “<I>Refined FG Theology</I>.”<BR/><BR/>Refining, such as with gold, is to eliminate impurities, and Hodges has determined that belief in the death, resurrection and deity of Christ are impurities that must be refined/eliminated from the saving content. In this case the Gospel has not been purified it has been stripped and neutered of its saving content. <BR/><BR/>Their use of “<I>Refined</I>” also shows the absurdity of their “<I>consistent</I>” label, because they have consistently refined their views. <BR/><BR/>Stephen (KnetKnight) has aptly titled their view as “<I><B><A HREF="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-re-defined-free-grace-theology-free.html" REL="nofollow">REDEFINED</B> FG Theology</A></I>.”<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-25042189448814948692008-06-20T07:41:00.000-05:002008-06-20T07:41:00.000-05:00Looker:I appreciate your input in the thread. As f...Looker:<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your input in the thread. <BR/><BR/>As for your comments on the GES losing membership, venues and financial support I have a few thoughts to share. I will reply to several of your comments in successive posts.<BR/><BR/>Just curious: Did you check the GES web page that shows NO regional conferences for 2008?<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-7033109450618725272008-06-19T21:35:00.000-05:002008-06-19T21:35:00.000-05:00from LM:"I appreciate and will respect your view o...from LM:"I appreciate and will respect your view of the debate, but there were issues behind scenes you are unaware of, that if you were you might not hold the same view."<BR/><BR/>I appreciate that things occurred of which I was unaware. I was simply an anonymous reader of various sites with absolutely no inside knowledge. I was able to see some things though which did not remain public for long. Considering what I did see and what was posted, the issue of focus stood out. <BR/><BR/>As for the shrinkage of GES, what of any substance can be said of that? Size makes no difference in regards to the truth or falsity of the doctrines GES promotes. Refining improves purity and if people leave due to differences in Bible-derived doctrine, I suspect we would all think that is a good thing. The dissolution of superficial alliances is to be applauded. <BR/><BR/>If the GES shrank so much that it was no longer self-sustaining and closed up shop, it would be illogical to conclude that the closure occurred because what they taught was incorrect. Such thinking is fallacious. Number of adherents is not an accurate determinant of faithfulness.<BR/><BR/>I would like to thank you and your guests for the very civil discussions going on in this thread.Looker4522https://www.blogger.com/profile/15878587719037810503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-31352499303391208092008-06-19T21:15:00.000-05:002008-06-19T21:15:00.000-05:00JP, I have gone over the post regarding dispensati...JP, I have gone over the post regarding dispensations taken from the DTS doctrinal statement. As I was going over the points in some detail, I think I began to get a little to deep. I don't really want to get into a long discussion of dispensational theology and how that impacts our soteriology. Also, I don't intend to have people here attempt to defend the DTS doctrinal statement. That is a rabbit trail we don't need to go down. <BR/><BR/>That path is too broad. For now, I simply am trying to find out what the saving message was before this present dispensation. I hope that idea is clear and simple enough. Particularly of interest, due to the terminology often used in the current controversy, is the question of whether the previous saving message was crossless? <BR/><BR/>Also, since there are apparently more than two dispensations by most reckonings, are there possibly more than two saving messages? (depending upon the dispensation)Looker4522https://www.blogger.com/profile/15878587719037810503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-4489943542876180772008-06-17T21:18:00.000-05:002008-06-17T21:18:00.000-05:00Michele:Glad you are finding these notes beneficia...Michele:<BR/><BR/>Glad you are finding these notes beneficial.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-45765620422285348132008-06-17T18:54:00.000-05:002008-06-17T18:54:00.000-05:00Wow.The way in which you share these accounts give...Wow.<BR/><BR/>The way in which you share these accounts gives me greater confidence that there has been effort made of the kind anyone could be proud of.<BR/><BR/>Though... there is always two sides, and I haven't heard the other yet. I wonder if there is a good reason why they do and say what they have. I can only guess what is going on for them. Meanwhile I know that whatever someone else does that isn't the very best, I have probably done it myself at some point. Somehow, we need to find a way to encourage them, and lead them to a place where they feel free in our presence to challenge themselves to improve. We all share the LORD of second chances.<BR/><BR/>I can remember when I've made a choice and made myself a fool. Satan wanted me to believe I was finished. But because of the cross, I had unrestrained high expectations! God is incredibly good, isn't He?<BR/><BR/>Lou, thanks for putting up with my probing.<BR/><BR/>MicheleSanctificationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06464241596473599613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-75219575073220933002008-06-17T17:43:00.000-05:002008-06-17T17:43:00.000-05:00Michele:You wrote, “How far do you think anyone is...Michele:<BR/><BR/>You wrote, “<I>How far do you think anyone is going to get by starting off a conversation walking up to someone saying, ‘Hello--you're a heretic’. There’s gotta be a better way</I>.”<BR/><BR/>If any one had started out dealing with the <I>Crossless</I> gospel advocates that way it would have been a problem. However, there have been attempts to deal with the advocates of the <I>Crossless</I> long before I came on the scene.<BR/><BR/>More recently, Stephen (KnetKnight) and Rachel interacted directly with Wilkin for several weeks after he left spoke at and left a wake of doctrinal controversy at their church. There efforts failed to reach any other conclusion than that Wilkin holds to a reductionist, heretical view of what the lost can be ignorant of and according to Wilkin still be born again.<BR/><BR/>In the last two years there have been some public, some private attempts to resolve and/or bring closure to the issue, but the <I>Crossless</I> advocates have been unwilling to meet for an open discussion. <BR/><BR/>As I noted earlier Wilkin immediately lost his zeal for an <I><B><A HREF="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/search/label/Open%20Challenge" REL="nofollow">open debate</A></B></I> that he (Wilkin) had for months been calling for, when his challenge was accepted by Ron Shea, who is highly qualified as both a theologian and experienced debater.<BR/><BR/>At last year's FGA National Conferecne there was a panel discussion, and while it was some what helpful, the crux of the doctrinal controversy was not honed in on, and nothing was settled. You might to read these reviews by <I><B><A HREF="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/10/dennis-rokser-on-fga-panel-discussion.html" REL="nofollow">Dennis Rokser</A></B></I> & <I><B><A HREF="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/10/tom-stegall-on-fga-panel-discussion.html" REL="nofollow">Tom Stegall</A></B></I>.<BR/><BR/>Last Fall the FGA proposed a private academic forum for 5 men on both sides to meet and discuss the issue. Several men who reject the <I>Crossless</I> were eager to meet, but no one from the GES side would agree to meet. Hodges, Wilkin, Stephen Lewis and Jim Johnson from the <I>Crossless</I> side were invited. Hodges and Wilkin declined immediately. Lewis and Johnson said they needed time to study and pray, which almost everyone knew was a facade. It was quite obvious, and was born out to be the case, that they had no intention of ever agreeing to an open discussion of the doctrinal controversy. Subsequently, Jim Johnson was discovered to have committed plagiarism on a scale probably never seen in theological circles. He, by his act of plagiarism and combative response to having been caught, has effectively disgraced and dishonored himself; therefore, he removed himself from any further relevancy. BTW, he is shutting down his blog, which is the only choice he has, because as long as he leave sit up, traces of (the parts he has not deleted) his massive plagiarism is available for any one to view. You can view the report and examples of <I><B><A HREF="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/search/label/Plagiarism" REL="nofollow">Johnson’s Plagiarism</A></B></I> at that link.<BR/><BR/>All attempts to recover Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the GES men have thus far failed. That does not mean we will not continue to pray for their recovery, but as long as they will not listen and/or are combative, there is little chance for their recovery.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-27982912369602373152008-06-17T14:22:00.000-05:002008-06-17T14:22:00.000-05:00Lou,As for me, forgive me for not being diligent t...Lou,<BR/><BR/>As for me, forgive me for not being diligent to read into the history you've been providing, it's not for a lack of desire, these are the things I've been requesting. I need more time.<BR/><BR/>I still think there is room here for thinking about approach.<BR/><BR/>I'll try and apply some basic reasoning.<BR/><BR/>How far do you think anyone is going to get by starting off a conversation walking up to someone saying, <BR/><BR/>"Hello--you're a heretic."<BR/><BR/>There's gotta be a better way.<BR/><BR/>I hung out with LDS and the first things I told them, when I first came on the scene, was, "Hello--you're going to hell," and "You are a cult," and "You are actually working for Satan."<BR/><BR/>While all those things might be true, I wasn't being heard! You are obligated by your conscience to obey God and mark this gospel. Okay. But in a social setting, if you wanna make any kind of difference, you gotta start with a different opening liner.<BR/><BR/>For every <I>individual</I> you come across who takes a particular approach in the scriptures, there are countless numbers of others that knowingly or unknowingly, they represent. You are not dealing with just two teachers, but of a whole theological grouping. Do you want to lose an opportunity to correct these teachings? For the sake of the little guy, who follows people first and scripture second? Then you must take care in how you treat them, by sharing some kinds of more difficult material secondarily to the most important thing you can say, which is something along the lines of what the gospel means to you, and how faithful God is to meet our needs, and how much he cares for each one of us to know the truth.<BR/><BR/>This is a huge problem in larger evangelical Christianity: they take whatever scriptures they might be justified to have, regarding social separation and rebuking, and have a hay-day.<BR/><BR/>But it makes no sense to love the Word of God more than finding ways to connect with others. The two are equally necessary to illuminate truth.<BR/><BR/>My two cents, sorry, I wish I had been more humble here, but I did not prepare like I should have.<BR/><BR/>MicheleSanctificationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06464241596473599613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-1084815977948797252008-06-17T07:43:00.000-05:002008-06-17T07:43:00.000-05:00Michele:I appreciate what you are sharing in your ...Michele:<BR/><BR/>I appreciate what you are sharing in your posts above. <BR/><BR/>Just a few thoughts in reply.<BR/><BR/>1) From the Scriptures the <I>Crossless</I> gospel of the GES has been shown to be a reductionist interpretation of the Gospel. It is antithetical to the plain teaching of the New Testament. The GES extremists go to the Bible with the Hodges’ presuppositions and either force into or extract from the Bible whatever new twist of interpretation to force the Scriptures into conformity with Hodges. They first, misinterpret and abuse John’s Gospel, then they give their new interpretation of John’s Gospel the preeminence over everything else on the Gospel found in the balance of the NT.<BR/><BR/>2) There is only one true Gospel of Jesus Christ. There are not two, or three ways to say the same thing. <I>Lordship Salvation</I> (LS) errs by addition; the <I>Crossless/Deityless</I> gospel (CG) errs by subtraction. Both views are a departure from the biblical plan of salvation. Both are false, non-saving messages. Both views have been fully explained by their lead apologists: MacArthur for LS, with Hodges for the CG.<BR/><BR/>3) You wrote, “<I>Consensus has been reached when the minimum agreeable point has been confirmed as being able to live with by all those with interest</I>.”<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your discussion of consensus building, but I would like to make a few remarks about that.<BR/><BR/>If you are suggesting that a consensus should be sought so that there can be a cooperative effort with the advocates of the CG- that would be a rejection of the biblical mandates (Rom. 16:17-18; Titus 3:10-11; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15) that forbid such fellowships.<BR/><BR/>There are individuals in and around the debate over the CG that prefers unity at the expense of truth. That is one of the earmarks of New Evangelicalism, which seeks unity even with apostate denominations. As I have written elsewhere: <I><B><A HREF="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2008/05/peace-at-price-of-purity-is-treason.html" REL="nofollow">Unity at the Price of Truth is Treason!</A></B></I><BR/><BR/>Unless and/or until the teachers of these twin heresies repent and return to an orthodox position on the Scriptures there is only one consensus that can be reached: separation from the teachers of these known and vital errors.<BR/><BR/>Finally, you wrote, “<I>…I hope that somebody with a name would submit an amendment to the FGA preamble on point... #3? The one which declares what gospel is</I>.”<BR/><BR/>That may very well be in the works and I encourage it. An article from the current leadership of the FGA clarifying #3 would be enough to settle what the "<I>obvious meaning</I>" of the Covenant is. Nevertheless, there is an “<I>obvious meaning</I>” to the FGA’s Covenant, especially when you read #2 & #3 in succession. I demonstrate this in an article titled, <I><B><A HREF="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2008/03/free-grace-alliance-membership.html" REL="nofollow">Free Grace Alliance Membership.</A></B></I> Dr. Fred Lybrand (VP of the FGA) is cited in the article and participated in the thread.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for your thoughts.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LM<BR/><BR/><B>*</B><I>Note to All: It is imperative for those of you who are new to these discussions to refer back to archived articles that I link to from any new article and/or thread comments such as this one. I link to these because they answer many of the questions you might have and shed light on the debate. I encourage you and those who have been engaged for a while to go back and read the links. You will find them very beneficial.</I>Lou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-10987138373958099432008-06-17T02:24:00.000-05:002008-06-17T02:24:00.000-05:00Lou,A study in "group dynamics" will be helpful he...Lou,<BR/><BR/>A study in "group dynamics" will be helpful here.<BR/><BR/>We are experiencing disputes in a complex issue in which there are many factions. I think it makes sense that as the <I>subject matter</I> is more important, the greater the desire to be correct, the more at stake, the greater the impact on the world.<BR/><BR/>Decisions ought best to be owned by the whole.<BR/><BR/>Where there are problems with a social dynamic, it is clear that any one faction relies on other factions for help to accomplish their mission; they are not fully independent. What decisions one faction makes, affects another because they are interdependent. Solving issues, therefore, cannot be done independently.<BR/><BR/>It is always true that stakeholders possess a wide range of understandings and perceptions of a problem. If a consensus can be built, that variety can be complimentary to achieving the mission instead of disintegrating.<BR/><BR/>In my mind I sense as you are reading this you are thinking, "no no no," because you have scriptures such as "mark and avoid" and so forth. But I should take the time and build a magnificent doctrine presentation for me and others, using scripture, which command us on how we act and what we say. I have already seen self-restraint in your personality, and I appreciate your heart to glorify God, but consider again:<BR/><BR/>"A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself, but the heart of fools blurts out folly." prov 12:23<BR/><BR/>Consensus has been reached when the minimum agreeable point has been confirmed as being able to live with by all those with interest.<BR/><BR/>For that reason I hope that somebody with a name would submit an amendment to the FGA preamble on point... #3? The one which declares what gospel is.<BR/><BR/>The consequences if a consensus is not attempted? Those who think they are following the LORD's will are not being received as such. It didn't take long for me to come across a LT individual who reads the publications of intra-FG writers not at all to make conclusions on what the Word says but wholly to make conclusions on whether or not the FG distinction from evangelical Christianity is wise.<BR/><BR/>The two posts describing Hixson's new book make me pleased with his approach. He has the free grace movement in mind. He certainly has the gospel "marked" as "having gone too far," which is sufficient, and clear. But it's not the title of his book like it is in this post, and it's not the title of a chapter, even; in 400 pages it gets a footnote. He made it clear what his opinion is, because he loves the truth as all of us do. Yet he must be aware, that there are others who think differently and that, how we are received to the world around us has everything to do with whether or not we will accomplish anything. I mean, it does. Both inside the group and outside, in all of these ministries. How we are received speaks more than our words -- what is the statistic? 7% words, 33% tone, 60% body language?<BR/><BR/>"Like an earring of gold or an ornament of fine gold is a wise man's rebuke to a listening ear." prov 25:12<BR/><BR/>I think Hixson did an excellent job handing this sensitive matter.<BR/><BR/>That is my opinion, to this point.<BR/><BR/>Thanks, MicheleSanctificationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06464241596473599613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-76859893058865781682008-06-16T23:48:00.000-05:002008-06-16T23:48:00.000-05:00To All:This thread has strayed somewhat off topic,...To All:<BR/><BR/>This thread has strayed somewhat off topic, but I believe the conversation is helpful, so far.<BR/><BR/>I do want to mention however, that while Dr. Hixson’s footnote is not a treatise on the <I>Crossless</I> gospel, his remarks remove any doubt that there is a doctrinal divide in the Free Grace (FG) community. The cause and reason for the fracture is the GES’s introduction of the <I>Crossless</I> gospel into FG circles.<BR/><BR/>Calls for unity at the expense of holding hands with the originators and advocates of the <I>Crossless/Deityless</I> gospel can only be heeded if one is willing to reject the biblical mandates that forbid fellowship with known and vital error.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-24281141686762598462008-06-16T23:08:00.000-05:002008-06-16T23:08:00.000-05:00Looker:I appreciate and will respect your view of ...Looker:<BR/><BR/>I appreciate and will respect your view of the debate, but there were issues behind scenes you are unaware of, that if you were you might not hold the same view.<BR/><BR/>Your wrote, “<I>Last summer I was following posts about the proposed public debate on various websites. My strong opinion is the debate proposal ended for one reason - a lack of focus</I>.”<BR/><BR/>IMO, the debate fell through for various reasons, but I can assure that one major contributor was the way in which Shea focused the question. “<I>This present dispensation…</I>” is a problem for <I>Crossless</I> advocates.<BR/><BR/>I have invited Ron Shea to offer some comments here for your consideration. If he can take time from his law practice and theological work, he may post here.<BR/><BR/>As for the “<I>quick demise</I>” of GES, time is relative, but GES’s influence is winding down, for which I am thankful. It is unquestionable (and I know for a fact) GES has lost membership, resources and venues that once hosted GES conferences. If you visit the GES site, and the Regional Conferences link, you will notice that no conferences are noted there for 2008. Why do you suppose that is? It may be that Wilkin has not posted details of any scheduled conferences, but that would be odd. I invite you to contact GES and ask for a schedule of conferences and the locations in 2008. Let us know what you hear; OK?<BR/><BR/>I am hopeful that, as more people become aware of their egregious doctrinal errors, GES will continue to lose membership, financial support and influence. It is likely we will always have the GES around, but as long as it is widely known, recognized and isolated as the home and prime instigator of the heretical <I>Crossless</I> gospel I am comfortable with whatever is left of it.<BR/><BR/>You mentioned GES is putting out newsletters and journals. In a few days, up to two weeks out, I will be posting one reader's reaction to one of the articles in the latest <I><B>Grace of Focus</B></I> journal.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-7982502767986190212008-06-16T19:36:00.000-05:002008-06-16T19:36:00.000-05:00from JP:"... the content of faith changes in the v...from JP:"... the content of faith changes in the various dispensations [and according to progressive revelation]. (Charles Ryrie..."<BR/><BR/>So it looks like Ryrie is a mutliple change advocate, not just a single post-Resurrection era change advocate. (poorly worded, but hope that's understandable)Very interesting.Looker4522https://www.blogger.com/profile/15878587719037810503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-37379943324355821732008-06-16T19:31:00.000-05:002008-06-16T19:31:00.000-05:00JP, thanks for your follow-up. I look through it t...JP, thanks for your follow-up. I look through it thoroughly and I'm sure I'll have something to give in response.<BR/><BR/>One quick thought: It seems obvious to me that Mr. Hodges and Mr. Wilkin are dispensationalists. If so, a dispensational viewpoint doesn't necessarily indicate one won't be a "crossless" supporter.Looker4522https://www.blogger.com/profile/15878587719037810503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-78219346909533468672008-06-16T19:27:00.000-05:002008-06-16T19:27:00.000-05:00Looker:Ryrie's well-known citation bears repeating...Looker:<BR/><BR/>Ryrie's well-known citation bears repeating: "The <I>basis</I> of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the <I>requirement</I> of salvation in every age is faith; the <I>object</I> of faith in every age is God; the <I>content</I> of faith changes in the various dispensations [and according to progressive revelation]." (Charles Ryrie, <I>Dispensationalism Today</I>, 123, italics his.)<BR/><BR/>JPJonathan Perreaulthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03701064430800312710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-25809441785800794402008-06-16T19:26:00.000-05:002008-06-16T19:26:00.000-05:00Last summer I was following posts about the propos...Last summer I was following posts about the proposed public debate on various websites. My strong opinion is the debate proposal ended for one reason - a lack of focus. You intimate here again that Mr. Wilkin "backed out" of the debate due to Mr. Shea's proposition. Others last year suggested Mr. Wilkin was unwilling to debate a man of Mr. Shea's stature and credentials. Such thinking is highly prejudicial. Focus, or the lack thereof, was the reason the quest for the debate ended. It was readily apparent in what was posted by GES. Of course, much of that is no longer available. That is unfortunate. That is how I remember what transpired back then.<BR/><BR/>I have skimmed over the links you provided, and there was a lot of unfounded speculation going up at that time. As we look back on it, we can see that much of the speculation was unfulfilled. GES continues in their work of discussing Scripture and putting out newsletters, journals and holding conferences. The prediction of their quick demise has been proven to be wrong. They have tried to remain focused on their mission. The proposed debate became entirely unfocused. You are correct in calling it a fiasco. I think both "sides" would have to agree with that - and a sad fiasco at that.Looker4522https://www.blogger.com/profile/15878587719037810503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-23457641079214972462008-06-16T19:14:00.000-05:002008-06-16T19:14:00.000-05:00Looker:There is more I could explain but I'm not s...Looker:<BR/><BR/>There is more I could explain but I'm not sure what direction your questions will take from here.<BR/><BR/>JPJonathan Perreaulthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03701064430800312710noreply@blogger.com