February 24, 2008

Evaluation & Response to “Crossless” Theology, Part #6

Dear Guests:

I am nearing completion of the current Evaluation & Response series.

We have been looking at how Antonio da Rosa (aka, fg me), an advocate and apologist for the Zane Hodges’ Crossless interpretation of the Gospel, views presenting the deity of Christ in a personal evangelism setting. This is part of a continuing series of revised and expanded comments I posted in a thread at Rose’s Reasonings.*

This particular view held by Antonio came to the forefront of debate and controversy, even among Crossless advocates, when Antonio wrote, “The Mormon Jesus and Evangelical Jesus are one and the same.” That statement touched off a protracted exchange and debate on the deity of Christ in the evangelistic setting at several blogs including my own. See- Can the Mormon Jesus & Biblical Jesus be “One and the Same?”

The following paragraph by da Rosa, which appeared in a lengthy thread at Rose’s Reasonings, reveals more of this peculiar position.
When a Mormon believes the saving message of Christ, it will be encumbent upon the discipler of him to lead the individual into the evangelical faith through the convincing testimony of the Scriptures (the King James version will do just fine) in conjunction with the Holy Spirit (who now indwells this Mormon). Serious temporal and eternal consequences may result for the saved Mormon who shuns the faith delivered to the saints.” (2/02/2008 6:34 PM)
Before I address the paragraph above I need to include another statement da Rosa made in the same thread. Antonio wrote,
I believe Mormonism is a cult which teaches damnable heresies concerning Jesus.” (2/2 @ 4:01PM)

What I would like to do from this point is split up Antonio’s opening paragraph and address it in segments.

In the opening paragraph Antonio verifies and reiterates his view that a Mormon, who believes what Antonio says are“damnable heresies concerning Jesus” can be born again. This is Antonio’s salvation no matter what “misconception,” including conscience denial of the deity of Christ, open rejection or unbelief the lost man has in his heart and mind about the Lord Jesus Christ. Belief in a promise of eternal life from any kind of Jesus the lost man wants to believe in, and according to most Crossless advocates, he has been born into the family of God.

Antonio insists a lost man who believes in a Mormon non-deity, false Christ, half-brother of Satan can be born again in spite of these “damnable heresies” he clings to. Antonio’s position is that a Mormon who believes in a completely different Jesus, a non-biblical Jesus can be saved by faith in a promise from this false-Christ.

Now, I will address Antonio’s statement step-by-step:

When a Mormon believes the saving message of Christ…


When a Mormon believes the saving message of Christ,” he is NOT believing in the saving message of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is because he does not believe there is a Lord Jesus Christ that is identified in the Bible as the only begotten Son of God. Antonio assumes belief in a promise of eternal life from a false, non-deity person named Jesus results in receiving the gift of eternal life. In the first sentence of his paragraph Antonio makes that very clear because he makes it the responsibility of teaching the Mormon as though he has been born again and should be in a discipleship class setting for new believers.

…it will be encumbent upon the discipler of him to lead the individual into the evangelical faith through the convincing testimony of the Scriptures (the King James version will do just fine) in conjunction with the Holy Spirit (who now indwells this Mormon)…


You can see why Antonio thinks rejection of the deity of Christ is something to be, “put on the back burner” and left there. He views any “misconception” including open reject of the Lord’s deity as a matter to be addressed in discipleship. In May 2006 Antonio, speaking of the woman at the well, wrote, “When she is convinced she has eternal life by faith in Christ, she will never thirst again, regardless of her blindspots or misconceptions about Christology.” The obvious problem with Antonio's approach to discipleship, in this situation, it that he would be trying to disciple a man who was never saved in the first place. Antonio would view and allow that lost man to go forward under the false impression that his faith in the promise of eternal life, from a false Christ, has resulted in his having been born again.

What does Antonio mean by “evangelical faith?” He can’t mean the faith that saves because he is under the impression the Mormon has been saved already. He must mean that he wants the Mormon to be brought to an evangelical/biblical faith in the deity of Jesus Christ. And what if, after having been discipled, the Mormon still rejects the Lord’s deity? Matthew, for Crossless advocates provides the answer. He wrote,
If he persisted in that heresy after being taught the truth, there would come a point where I would need to separate from him. But it would first be necessary to treat him as a babe in Christ.” [1]

The latter portion of Antonio’s statement above further substantiates that Antonio believes a Mormon can and has been saved who consciously rejects the deity of Jesus Christ. He believes that man, who consciously denies the deity of Christ, has been indwelt by the Holy Spirit. [2]

Antonio’s remarks concludes with,
Serious temporal and eternal consequences may result for the saved Mormon who shuns the faith delivered to the saints.”

This final portion of Antonio’s statement takes us to another one of the extremist positions he, and others in the GES faction of the Free Grace community, have adopted that largely originates in the teachings of Zane Hodges.

Antonio believes Christians will appears at a “punitive” Judgment Seat of Christ (JSC). In his statement above da Rosa is suggesting temporary and “eternal” consequences await born again Christians when they appear at the JSC. Having grown up in the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), the first thing that came to my mind when I read Antonio’s statement was the RCC’s heretical teaching on Purgatory.

Some advocates of the punitive JSC believe that there will be some Christians who lose more than just rewards, but will be cast into outer darkness. This article is not the place, nor is this the time to fully develop and address this absurd teaching on the Judgment Seat of Christ, but one day I will.

The teachings of the GES (Hodges, Wilkin, Niemla, Lewis, Johnson and da Rosa) are egregious errors that corrupt and assault the Person and finished work of Jesus Christ.

The Hodges/GES reductionist version of the biblical plan of salvation must be exposed and biblically resisted so that not one more unsuspecting Christian or lost person is drawn into the trap of the Crossless gospel.


LM

[1] Evaluation & Response, Part 4. (See 2/11/08 @ 3:10PM)

[2] At his India Mission Journal 2007 blog Antonio made this statement,
I beseech you, brethren, to make supplications and requests for this strategic missions endeavor to God our Father. Please pray that the Holy Spirit prepare the hearts of those whom He is directing our ministry to, through dreams, visions, and other circumstances.
Since the close of the cannon of Scripture when has the Holy Spirit been speaking through, “dreams and visions?” This statement by Antonio suggests a Charismatic leaning in his view of the role of the Holy Sprit in this dispensation.

The next comment by Antonio might explain his Charismatic “dreams and visions” statement,
I like to consider myself a charismatic in training. I do not ever want to be accused of putting God in a box. I want to see the supernatural, and I believe that God is still in that business.” Eternal Security is Christ’s Guarantee… (See Antonio’s thread comment on Nov. 16, 2005 @ 5:54PM)

*Rose’s Reasonings is a blog that is largely supportive of and sympathetic to the teaching and advocates of the Crossless gospel.

32 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian:

    Looks like Rose is letting your comment stand at her blog. So, I’ll drop it from this thread. I do, however, share some of the concerns you raised there.

    I’d like to leave this thread reserved for discussion of the article; OK?

    If your comment gets deleted we’ll see about reposting it here.

    Thanks,


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Lou. I will go over and check.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess I have been blocked off of their blogged and rebuked for being unreasonable because I stand fast to the cross. They feel they are more reasonable because they consider the cross non essential to ones understanding of salvation. How in the world did we ever come to this. I am also considered to be wicked and unreasonable for believing this. We are reaping what Jesus said would happen in the last days. Right would be called wrong and wrong would be called right. I am considered to be wicked for holding fast to the truth. I will just take this burden to the Lord just now as my reward in heaven grows. I rejoice that I have been considered worthy to suffer for the cross. Who ever thought that this stand upon the blessed cross would become so controversial? Well, I will simply take this burden to the Lord and leave it there. He is my advocate and he hears his little ones that cry out to Him day and night.

    Grace upon grace,

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian:

    We are dealing with men, some of them, whose conscience has been seared.

    They have been deceived and they now view as truth what is a corruption of the Gospel.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brian
    "I am also considered to be wicked and unreasonable for believing this."

    Who has called you wicked? I have not.

    The reason your comments are not welcome is because of their extreme hostility.

    "They feel they are more reasonable because they consider the cross non essential to ones understanding of salvation."

    This is a misrepresentation. The cross is essential to a right understanding of salvation. A person who misunderstands the cross will be in terrible confusion.

    However, a right understanding of salvation is not a condition for receiving eternal life.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    ReplyDelete
  7. Matthew:

    You wrote, “The cross is essential to a right understanding of salvation. A person who misunderstands the cross will be in terrible confusion.”

    What are you saying? That statement is, from what I can tell, a contradiction of what Hodges says.

    Hodges wrote, “The simple truth is that Jesus can be believed for eternal salvation apart from any detailed knowledge of what He did to provide it.”

    Hodges says it is not necessary to understand or believe virtually anything about the finished work of Christ for salvation.

    The cross was essential to make salvation available, but for Hodges and Wilkin knowledge of or understanding the cross is totally unnecessary for the reception of salvation.

    We all know Antonio says any “misconception” does not hinder a lost man from being saved, including belief in Mormonism's false-Christ.

    How do you explain your apparent contradiction of the Hodges view?


    LM

    PS: I don't need the girly greetings here, just shoot straight and be concise. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lou,

    I don't need the girly greetings here, just shoot straight and be concise.

    Careful now... ;-) I'm stereotypically relational, but don't have any desire for people to say "Hi Rachel" at the beginning of their every post on my blog. Especially if they're addressing someone else. So I don't think it's a "girl" thing, I think it's just a "Rose" thing. :-)

    Regarding Matthew's comment, I think he answered your question in his next sentence, that "a right understanding of salvation is not a condition for receiving eternal life." I think Matthew would agree with Hodges that Jesus can be believed for eternal salvation apart from a "right understanding" of salvation. I think Matthew is saying that you can't understand salvation w/o knowing about the cross, but you don't need to understand salvation in order to receive it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Rachel:

    It was a "Rose thing" I was touching on. Sorry, if I got your toes.

    Yes, I see Matthew's final sentence now.

    Thanks,


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  10. Brian,

    I think you are overreacting a bit to your being banned from UoG. They didn't say you were wicked, and I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that being banned from a blog constitutes "suffer[ing]".

    I don't think you were banned because you "stand fast to the cross". I agree with you on this issue of the gospel, yet I have not been banned. Perhaps they will ban me soon, but it would surprise me. And perhaps there is more behind Matthew's reasons for banning you than what he stated, but I see no reason to speculate. Matthew said that he was banning you from UoG (but not his other blogs) as a result of what he sees as "too much hostility". I haven't really seen "too much hostility" from you (certainly no more than Alvin shows to everyone who disagrees with him). But I must acknowledge that, on this topic, I see more hostility from you than discussion of the Scriptures. But to say you've been banned because you "stand fast to the cross" isn't quite accurate. There are others of us who "stand fast to the cross" as part of the gospel, who have not been banned.

    Brian, never falter on the truth, always stand strong for what you believe in. But perhaps you could try a different approach and method at times for sharing the truth. Just something to consider...

    Your sister in Christ,
    Rachel

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rachel,

    That is fine. You are only trying to help. I have sort of been at this for almost 3 years now and have had more than a few run ins with Rose, Antonio, but not Matthew. This is typical. If anyone engages they generally come out looking bad but Rose...well she has a way of coming out smelling like a Rose. She usually implants comments and then deletes the ones you post and then make it look as though you do not look so good. I am just not going to do it anymore. It kinda like that tar baby thing. Youll find out if you keep at it.

    Last night she dialogued over my unreasonableness. I tried to comment back but some of them were deleted and I see a couple are standing. As far as the accussations. She has packaged them in a neat way over at her blog and I will post it here. Remember that she considers me to be very unreasonable and she has said that more than once to me.

    Here is here comment to Lou, but with here unreasonable scripture citations left for anyone to read and for anyone she considers unreasonable. Lou and I just happen to fall in that catagory.

    "Hello again Lou,

    Now I looked at 2 Thessalonians 3 in the New King James vesrion.

    A couple of things:
    I love this verse:
    1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run swiftly and be glorified, just as it is with you, 2 and that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men; for not all have faith.

    Being unreasonable goes right along with being wicked. I like that because I place a high premium on reasonableness.

    Anyway,
    I see Paul warning them not to put up with men who are lazy and disorderly. Also, he doesn't appreciate busybodies.

    I think Paul is telling these folks that if a brother does not obey the command and exhortation to work in quietness and eat [his] own bread

    ... then the other believers should not keep company with him so that he may be ashamed and get his act together. Paul placed an emphasis upon being honorable and the ones he was referring to were not honorable - but living like leeches and meddling in others' business - instead of pulling their own weight.

    I see this as having no releveance to doctrinal nuances amongst believers. You may show me other passages that do, but this is not one of them."

    Thats fine if some of you feel otherwise. I just am a bit tuckered out with all of this for now. Truly about everynight we have something going on. Sports programs, Awana, Revivals at sister churches.

    Grace upon grace,

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  12. One other thing Rachel for you to consider. Are you sure it is good to take things personally as far as standing for the cross? Should you compare yourself with me and judge me in accordance with your behaviour?

    Just a thought. I appreciate you sister,

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  13. Brian,

    Thanks for your thoughts.

    I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "Are you sure it is good to take things personally as far as standing for the cross?" What do you mean, "take things personally"? I'm not really taking anything personally, as in, while I disagree with Matthew, Antonio, Jeremy, Alvin, etc. I don't have any personal vendetta against any of them.

    I am not, nor do I plan to, judge you or compare myself with you. You had stated that you were being banned essentially because of the view you hold on this gospel issue. I only mentioned myself as an example of someone who holds the same view but who has not been banned. I was simply trying to show that it is unlikely that you were banned merely for standing for a particular view. Kev is another who stands for the same view but has not been banned (as far as I know) from that blog.

    I understand that different people have different gifts and personalities and ways of doing things. I'm just trying to give you something to think about, that's all.

    Sorry to hear you are so busy every night! My kids are only 4 and 1, so we don't have that much yet, but I'm sure it won't be long before we do! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. I see your point but still wonder if the tolerance is healthy that is occuring here. I realize I turned up the heat, but I was not insulting them. This cross should be a divisive message to those who quibble with it whether we enjoy their company or not. They are still spreading gangrene by not standing fast to the cross. By their nuetrality they are taking a stand and by my reminding them of this I have become offensive to them. Even though I agree with you I still think Lous approach here is much needed to break this up. There were times when Moses had to lift the sword and ask who was on the Lords side. If the cross does not echo a clarion call for this, then what does?

    Even though you have made a point, it is not one I agree with. This is not about how you or others handle it. This is about the positional truth of the love of God only made manifest at the cross. We cannot compromise. This is why I feel you are placing your personality and behaviour in a place that really doesnt matter. I encourage you to continue as you are, but do not understand why you must discourage men like Lou and myself for getting under holy arms and lifting them up. The cross must be lifted up. Satan is ever warring against it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hey Brian:

    I want you to know that I find Rachel to be one of the most dedicated, consistent, biblically balanced and articulate voices in the blogosphere when it comes to resisting the Crossless. interpretation of the Gospel.

    I can name a number of folks who were effective voices in the debate, but have come and went, that I would like to have seen stay engaged in the debate. Rachel has stayed the course. She been a help and blessing to me in the defense of the Gospel.

    So, I am not sure what tolerance you are talking about, but I can assure you Rachel is not at all tolerant of the Crossless or its advocates.


    LM

    PS: Her husband has also been a great help in this debate as well.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lou,

    Thanks for the encouragement.

    Brian,

    I am fine with "Lou's approach here". I am certainly not trying to discourage you or Lou from lifting up the cross. The only point in your post that I was taking issue with was you saying you were banned merely for standing for your view. It seems evident that they do not simply ban people that disagree with them. They are strongly opposed to Calvinism, yet Colin (a strong Calvinist) posts there just fine.

    I'm not "tolerating" their false doctrine. Indeed, my husband and I, along with a few others at our church, spent hours upon hours researching and discussing this issue. We then held 3 separate meetings with our entire pastoral staff and deacons about this issue (if you didn't know, Bob Wilkin spoke at our church last June). We were asking that a statement of some sort be made that our church is not in agreement with Wilkin on this. We could have "tolerated" his doctrine, in fact we were asked to "let it go" by various friends and church members. On the contrary, it was our very intolerance of this doctrine that caused us to press on for a clear statement of where our church stands.

    Brian, I don't want to debate this with you. I was simply trying to encourage you to try to look at the situation objectively.

    Be strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rachel has correctly explained what I meant in saying that the cross is essential to a right understanding of salvation.

    Our reception of eternal life does not depend on our understanding Christ's work, but our relying upon Him to provide the benefit of it in eternal life.

    God Bless

    Matthew

    ReplyDelete
  18. This is fine that you have taken the time to do this Rachel. I simply dont wish to be considered as a scapegoat. As I said before, I have spent three years talking with Antonio, Rose and Matthew. I was hoping somehow that you could see that you are interjecting yourself and projecting your wishes on to me. The bottom line is that this is sin. Clear and simple sin. Deal with it as you must, but we must call it what it is and stop dressing it one way or the other. This is sin and we all need to stop sweeping this under the rug. Please take both yourself and I out of the picture. We must make our choices here, but we also must call this what it is and stop trying to offer an olive branch to it. It is sin. The deeper you get in it, the more you will be decieved by it. You cannot bargain with evil whispers from Satan that seem good and convincing but are clearly in contradiction to the truth. I must stand here.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Matthew,

    Rachel is not going to be able to stand there and vouch for you at the Judgment. You must make your choice. We either come by way of the cross or we don't. There is no other way, just as there is no purgatory for the undecided.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Satans lie and false gospel as spoken through Matthew:
    "Our reception of eternal life does not depend on our understanding Christ's work, but our relying upon Him to provide the benefit of it in eternal life."

    That is not the gospel message. That is a lie that will not save. You cannnot divorce what he has done from the gospel. You have sliced it in half and will suffer great loss one day for this if you do not repent and believe the true gospel. I can only hope that at some point in your life you have and that satan is deceiving you but you are very persistent in rejecting the truth.

    "As we said before, so say I now again, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were striving to please men, I would not be a bond servant of Christ." Galations 1:9-10

    This is the true gospel as Jesus speaks truth through the apostle Paul:

    "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you STAND. by which you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of FIRST IMPORTANCE what I also received, THAT CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS according to the scriptures, and that He was buried and that He was raised on the third day according to the scriptures." 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

    Paul tells the truth. Satan speaks lies and deceives. Matthew is not speaking the words that Paul give us here.

    Paul does not tell us to consider people that speak lies concerning the gospel disobedient brethren, but accursed. Paul said that. I did not. Satan of course will suffer his fate and the Lord will rebuke Him. Matthew is precious to God, but I must pray that as he is handed over to Satan in this deception that he learns not to blaspheme. It is in God's hands. This is the way of God as it was the way of Paul. Billions of souls depend on this truth, so we must deal harshly with any deceptions of it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Brian:

    I agree that we must fervently, biblcally resist the teaching and advocates of the Crossless gospel.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  22. Amen Lou. God places a high premium on the cross. I stand there with you. I can do no other. All other ground is sinking sand. His work is just as imperitive as His person as it is written in His word of the words from His work at the cross, "It is finished!" If you do not rest there, then there is nowhere else to rest. Men and women have their choices to make. I cannot make it for them and I certainley will not lose my shirt or any rewards trying to stand in the gap for false teachers and encourage others to consider what they are saying. I am not ashamed of Jesus and His words. I will not lose my shirt over the crossless gospels false words.

    "For whoever is ashamed of ME And MY WORDS in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels."

    Grace upon grace,

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  23. "As we said before, so say I now again, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, he is to be accursed!"

    I would hardly say I preach any message that could be desctribed as 'crossless.'

    I proclaim and exalt the deity of our Lord and I proclaim redemption through the cross and the shed blood of our Saviour.

    There is absolutely nothing 'crossless' about my preaching.

    As yet, I have never had to tell anybody that they can be born again while denying the deity of our Lord. Please hold off delivering me up to Satan until I do.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    ReplyDelete
  24. Matthew:

    You wrote, “I proclaim and exalt the deity of our Lord and I proclaim redemption through the cross and the shed blood of our Saviour.

    There is absolutely nothing ‘crossless’ about my preaching.


    Speaking for the men and women I work most closely with who reject the Crossless gospel, we have always conceded that you men might and often will preach the cross to the lost man. That is not where my argument is.

    The controversy is not over what you personally believe, the controversy is not over what you believe Jesus did to provide salvation, the controversy is not over what you might tell the lost in a soul-winning situation.

    The controversy IS over what you men believe the lost man can misunderstand and/or reject and still be saved.

    And remember, Hodges views the finished work on Christ and His deity as “excess baggage” in a presentation because according to him the lost can be saved apart from understanding or believing these truths, including the cross.

    The Hodges/Wilkin/GES position is truly Crossless, but even that label does not go far enough in describing what has been lifted out of the Gospel by Hodges.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  25. Matthew:

    You wrote, “As yet, I have never had to tell anybody that they can be born again while denying the deity of our Lord

    The key to understanding your position is in your opening words in bold, “As yet.”

    You do believe the lost can be saved even if he consciously rejects the Lord’s deity. If it comes up you will tell him that rejecting the Lord’s deity does not hinder him from being saved.

    If the lost man said he believe in Jesus’ promise to give him eternal life, and you found out 5 minutes later that he did not and does NOT believe that Jesus is the Son of God (Deity) you would assure him he was born again anyway; wouldn’t you?

    You would try to disciple him as if he is born again; wouldn’t you? And if he still rejected the Lord’s deity you claim that you would separate from him as if he is a born-again Christian who is rejecting and disobeying the Bible’s teaching on the Lord’s deity; wouldn’t you?

    I am just repeating what you have already confirmed (See thread in Evaluation, Part 5) is your position and that of most of the Crossless advocates.

    Antonio (aka, Sock Puppet: fg me) also holds to these positions and has often confirmed this at his blog.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  26. Matthew,

    Can you not see that you are preaching it across the blogsiphere and encouraging others that it is ok to preach it on the streets even if you haven't?

    "For whoever is ashamed of ME And MY WORDS in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels."

    "As we said before, so say I now again, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were striving to please men, I would not be a bond servant of Christ." Galations 1:9-10

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Pray Lou. Pray hard. It is hard to understand how people can be so cavalier about this and continue to justify it. There reaches a point where debate and earnest and true biblical reasoning in accordance with Isaiah 1:18 reaches an end. The Hebrew word is one of intense arguing in court for the truth. They are rejecting this reasoning. There really is nothing left to argue and they and would like to not see us around. That is fine. They have already done that favor for me and I will continue to do that favor for them. They have made their choice. It is done. Prayer is the only thing if we care about these people. Men may be able to reject our arguments, but they are powerless against our prayers. I am just so thankful. I was very nearly beguiled by the Hodges camp at one time, but thankfully God snatched me from this deceit. We must continue to pray.

    ReplyDelete
  29. As I read over this definition and Roses misunderstanding of even this Hebrew term. I see that it really has been you who has put relational matters aside and been the true reasoner. The Hebrew word for reasoning and its link to the plan of redemption in Isaiah 1:18.

    Yakhach: To dispute with someone, argue, to be convicted, reprove, correct, to mediate, arbitrate, punish; to chide. The most famous passage containing Yakhach is probably Isaiah 1:18, which is in the context of a covenant lawsuit. Judah had been practicing religious festivals of their own design in rebellion against Jehovah, the plaintiff (Isaiah 1:10-15) Isaiah calls upon them to repent (Isaiah 1:16-20) The KJV has:'Let us reason together' The prophet is saying, 'Let us debate our case in court'. See Mic 6:2. The connotation of legal confrontation is clearly attached to this term. - Zodhiates

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hi Brian:

    Thanks for stopping by and the notes you provided.

    I am planning to run a new series of past articles. I want to bring back some of what I feel are the best in exposing and refuting the teachings of Hodges, Wilkin and the GES.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yeah. Repost them. We need to be reminded.

    ReplyDelete