Kevin Bauder: A Call for His Removal From the Platform of the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship

“Some Would Like Me to be Removed From the Platform of the FBFI this Summer,” (Dr. Kevin Bauder).

In recent days there has been a great deal of controversy and contention among Independent Fundamental Baptists (IFB) within and around the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI).

The uproar began over a message delivered by Dr. Dan Sweatt at the FBFI South Regional Fellowship in April. You can read details in my previous article, The IFB & Calvinism: Flashpoint!

First at the height of, and then later as the uproar over Sweatt’s message began to subside, two articles were published by Dr. Kevin Bauder (President, Central Baptist Theological Seminary). Both were posted at the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron blog. In order they were: Time to Speak Up & Nuff Said
Both articles contain remarks that many believe to be ill-timed, inflammatory criticisms of several historic Independent Fundamental Baptist preachers. In Time to Speak Up, Dr. Bob Jones. Jr. (among others) was targeted by Bauder.

Dr. John R. Rice was singled out for expanded criticism in Bauder’s second article.

In his Nuff Said article Bauder raised the issue of calls for his removal from the platform of the FBFI this summer. Dr. Bauder wrote,

“Fundamentalism is still home to quite a few people who were willing to burn incense to the emperors. Those people are very unhappy with the way things are going at the moment. They would like to see the FBFI leadership denounce me and a few others in no uncertain terms. Some would like me to be removed from the platform of the FBFI this summer. They have communicated their wishes to the leaders of the FBFI.”

I included the early portion of the paragraph above to exemplify why I believe other men have been moved to call for Bauder’s removal from the FBFI platform. If Bauder wanted to make incendiary comments (more examples of which to follow) to motivate men to call for his removal he did a fine job of it. “Burn incense to the emperors,” is not innocent “Bauderian hyperbole” as some might suggest.

I do not know which men Bauder had in mind above, but I am adding my name to the men who he states have been encouraging the FBFI leadership to excuse him from speaking at the upcoming FBFI 89th Annual Fellowship.

Through the two articles Bauder, of his own volition, made himself a lighting rod for controversy in the IFB community. He has become no less controversial than Dr. Sweatt from the other end of the controversy.

What are some reasons why Dr. Bauder should not be a featured speaker at the FBFI annual fellowship? Depending on whom you ask, those reasons might include, but not be limited to:

1) His rhetoric about Dr. Bob Jones Jr. has never been retracted. Dr. Bob Jr. was a big part of the FBF in yesteryear. Should an FBFI speaker be allowed to publicly (as one man noted to me) “throw Dr. Jones under the bus and nothing be done about it?” What message is sent when an open attack against Dr. Bob Jones is tolerated with no response or consequences whatsoever?

2) His comments about Dr. Rice were highly inflammatory as Missionary **John Himes expressed in the closed thread at the conservative evangelicalism Sharper Iron site. For example Himes wrote,

“Again, I am very disappointed at the language Bauder uses against his fellow fundamentalists, evidently chiefly against Rice: ‘pugilistic and bellicose,’ ‘alpha males,’ ‘the big boys,’ ‘bullies,’ ‘chieftains,’ etc. Is this the kind of language a fundamentalist leader should use?”

Can anyone explain how Bauder’s remarks contribute to healing the rift in the IFB community and promotes reconciliation and growth? How are men edified when in Bauder’s last two articles we are treated to harsh criticisms of men who were Fundamentalist leaders in their generation? In the brochure for FBFI annual fellowship there are no message titles noted for each of the keynote speakers. What guarantees do we have that Bauder will refrain from a continuation these critical themes during his Wednesday morning address to the annual fellowship attendees?

The difference before us is that Sweatt’s message in April apparently took the FBFI membership by complete surprise. The reaction, however, was swift from the offended parties and the FBFI responded in an appropriate official manner. With Dr. Bauder, however, he has prior to the annual fellowship given a public offense and refuses to publicly discuss or retract his statements. Instead of being a calming influence Bauder reignited passions with stinging criticism and incendiary remarks in regard to men from our Fundamentalist heritage. In light of those remarks why should men not be just as troubled with Bauder retaining a platform presence at the annual fellowship as men who were offended by Dr. Sweatt’s remarks would be if he (Sweatt) were seated there as well?

With an opportunity before him to promote unity, healing and reconciliation in the IFB community Dr. Bauder chose to pursue a different tact. Instead he further polarized factions, alienated many and fueled further division among men in and around the FBFI. I can’t imagine a more unnecessary, unwise and ill-timed moment as this juncture in the chain of events for Bauder to publish sharp criticism of widely respected men from our own IFB heritage.

The FBFI’s official response Speak the Truth in Love to the tumultuous discussion and disagreement that followed the message by Dr. Sweatt included the following statement,

“We must honor our biblical responsibility to use speech that edifies and displays Christ-like love. We must demonstrate an unwavering commitment to humble integrity. Caricatures and personal attacks do not honor the Lord or advance His work. Neither pulpit nor keyboard exempt us from these biblical obligations.”

Dr. Bauder’s criticisms of Dr. Jones and Dr. Rice was not speech that edifies. It was not a display of Christ-like love. Bauder’s tone was not the sound of humble integrity. The caricatures of Jones and Rice, while barely skirting personal attacks, certainly did not honor the Lord or those men. It is irrefutable that the speech with which Dr. Bauder described Drs. Jones and Rice is antithetical to what the FBFI leadership called for.

How does Kevin Bauder’s rhetoric about Fundamentalists of yesteryear serve in the best interest of the FBFI and a potential healing of the widening fracture in the broader IFB community?

In my opinion the most honorable thing Dr. Bauder can do would be to excuse himself from speaking at the 2009 FBFI annual fellowship. He would do well to acknowledge his sharp criticisms of Dr. Jones, Jr. and Dr. Rice were ill-timed and harmful to the efforts of the FBFI to restore calm and charity among IFB men just ahead of the annual fellowship. In the best interest of the overall body of IFB believers Dr. Bauder should acknowledge his remarks were not helpful, apologize for and repent of them. Realizing the high improbability of that decision coming from Bauder I will close with the following.

Kevin Bauder’s recent actions justify calls for his being relieved from any speaking assignments at this year’s FBFI annual fellowship. That action will be a strong signal to any man, regardless of stature and/or theological pedigree, that there will be no tolerance for any man who intends to follow Bauder’s example and tone, which at present is contributing to the polarization of the IFB community.

Unless Dr. Bauder retracts his inflammatory rhetoric in regard to Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. and Dr. John R. Rice, men are justified in calling on the FBFI leadership to remove him from the platform for the upcoming annual fellowship. To reiterate from above: In light of Dr. Bauder’s Time to Speak Up and Nuff Said men are completely justified to be just as disturbed by his being given a platform presence at the FBFI annual fellowship as men who object to Dr. Sweatt’s remarks at the FBFI South Regional Fellowship would be if Dr. Sweatt were to be featured.

In the best interest of balance and encouraging all FBFI members toward, “speech that edifies” and “an unwavering commitment to humble integrity” I am joining other men in calling on the FBFI leadership to prayerfully consider removing Dr. Kevin Bauder from the platform for the upcoming annual fellowship.


LM

UPDATE: Kevin Bauder has (incredibly) fanned the flames and accelerated the controversy by publishing yet another article at his own site, which SI has also republished and enthusiastically supports. Over the weekend I may be posting details in the thread of this article.

Please continue to- Kevin Bauder: Even More Than “Nuff Said” For His Removal From the National Platform of the FBFI Annual Fellowship

**Brother Himes is the grandson of Dr. John R. Rice.

NOTE: For more commentary on this subject, see the Appendix entry that appears at the beginning of this thread.

Update:

I was in attendance at the 2009 FBFI Annual Fellowship. During the Q&A Symposium fears that Kevin Bauder might launch another unprovoked attack against historic Fundamentalism were realized. He just could not let his three previous attacks on the legacy of Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. and John R. Rice be “Nuff said.”

Toward the end of the Q&A Bauder dodged a direct question put to him by symposium moderator Dr. John Dr. Vaughn about the conservative evangelicals, which was the subject of the Q&A. His dodge extended to besmirching Bob Jones University for having hosted various candidates for political office.

The irony was BJU president Stephen Jones was ill and, therefore, could not appear in the Symposium as scheduled. So, Bauder lowered his crosshairs on the most recognized personality from BJU available to him on the panel: Dr. Mark Minnick.

Dr. Minnick was obviously uncomfortable with Bauder ambushing him with criticism of BJU administration decisions, and calling on him to explain it. Dr. Minnick graciously tried to leave the discussion for the BJU administration to answer since he (Minnick) is not a BJU administrator and cannot speak for the administration, but Bauder kept up the pressure.

With Bauder’s dodge from the symposium topic to instead publicly broadside BJU, and ambush Mark Minnick, he should never again be given a platform presence at an FBFI sponsored event.
 

LM

The IFB & Calvinism: Flashpoint!

This issue, Calvinism, has been bubbling just under the surface for better than ten years. In April it came to a flash point.

The trigger was pulled at the *Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI) regional conference. At this conference one of the main speakers delivered a message in which he expressed his rejection of Calvinism in very stark terms. The message was titled, Young & Restless by Dr. Dan Sweatt. You can listen to the audio and/or download a transcript by clicking on the message title. Many of our Reformed IFB brethren were stung to fury by this message, reacted sharply and with great indignation.

Today the FBFI President and Chairman of the Board published a response, which predictably did little to quell the uproar coming from the Reformed community. This current controversy is going to continue to play itself out. IMO, it will be a hot-button topic for discussion at the June 2009 FBFI National Conference that I will be attending, Lord willing.

In the opinion of some, the IFB camp is close to a split across lines drawn over Calvinistic theology. There is way too much for me to share and further clarify, but the issue is a serious one in the IFB camp. Passions are running high with some and this fueling the debate to sometimes harsh personal levels.

Just before I publicly dropped my membership (06-08-2009) at the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron (SI) site I contributed nearly 50 comments to various threads. The original threads were:

I Cannot Help But Hear His Message…

Time to Speak Up

Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals

Remembering Who the Enemy Is

Many of you who visit here frequently may not be very familiar with the current debate and SI in particular. A preliminary thought for your consideration. SI alleges to be a place for IFB people. SI is, however, dominated by participants and moderators who are Calvinistic in their theology and strongly biased in that direction. You will note a heavy preponderance of comments for and on behalf of the Calvinist view in the current controversy. Most are fair, balanced and charitable, others not so. You will furthermore note that the SI site is heavily skewed toward to promotion of the so-called conservative evangelicalism- its star personalities and fellowships. This is a fact based observation of SI for your information if you choose to lurk and/or read there.

In the next few days I will be posting two or more new related articles. One is going to be in regard to the current IFB Calvinism controversy and what some may consider the best and possibly inevitable solution. A possible solution that has great potential to further the cause of Christ through the Fundamentalist community more so than we are seeing today in its present (sometimes volatile) form.For a continuation of this discussion please read, A Call for Removal of Dr. Kevin Bauder from the Platform of the FBFI Annual Fellowship.


LM

*I am an active member of the FBFI.

Men Consistently “Saw the Light” of Zane Hodges’s Reasoning, Conclusion

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

I am going to continue Ron Shea’s series by combining Part 4 & 5 into one concluding article.

For Parts 1, 2 & 3 respectively see-

What Turned Zane Hodges to This Profound “Deconstructionist” Error?

The “Deconstructionist” Gospel: Its No Coincidence

Regarding the Crossless Gospel Mantel

Part 4, Regarding Us

As I noted, most men will only receive reproof from one older than they are . . . especially when it is in matters of theology. IMO Bob Wilkin regards few men (if any) as his equal as a theologian. If he begins to return to orthodoxy, whether it be a result of God’s reproof, God’s blessing, God’s conviction of his error and illumination of Scripture, or a man of Dr. Earl Radmacher’s stature confronting Bob for a serious chat, each of us should keep his place in humility.

Imagine if you changed your interpretation of some particular verse (albeit, not as serious an error as the Crossless Gospel), and an immature Christian who had held the proper interpretation before you basically presented himself to the world as your mentor. It would be rather offensive. It would, in fact, almost insure that you remained in his error.

The credit should first and foremost, go to the one who displays the integrity, intellectual honesty and humility to acknowledge his or her error, and return to the truth. The credit should not go to some little narcissist who had been saved six months earlier, but by chance, happened to have arrived at the more orthodox interpretation first.

If Bob Wilkin is ever to return to the clarity on repentance that he expressed in his doctoral thesis, and clarity on the gospel of Christ crucified for the sins of the world, great credit should go to him for the humility and the intellectual honesty it will require of him after painting himself in to one heck-of-an extremist corner. The credit should not go to us. And if we seek to position ourselves as the “savior” of Bob, or MacArthur, or any other such brother, we will be held accountable at the bema for our own massive ego, which only served to anchor our brother in his erroneous doctrine.

Let’s try to keep our own egos out of it, and not make Bob feel he is “acquiescing” to men of inferior intellect and theological ability. Our actions, including our demeanor and attitude, should, first and foremost, be humble. They should be, in every way, geared to restoring him, not glorifying ourselves.

Part 5- A FINAL ADMONITION

We all seek approval and validation. And it is a stark warning to each of us. Each of us is torn by a myriad of emotions. And to us, many of these emotions are invisible and unseen by us . . . because we are in the middle of them. They can taint our view of reality. Whether it is the pain of recognizing that someone we loved is probably in Hell, or the need for validation, or any other emotional motive, Satan stands ready to seduce each of us from the purity of the gospel, one inch at a time.

This Crossless Gospel is not the only heresy we will see in our lifetime. Throughout our lives, each of us will be target by the enemy. And he will seek to sift each of us like wheat in a moment when we are weak. A moment when we deeply need an income to support our family, and a church or teaching job comes available, but at a cost. A moment when our dignity as a theologian has been abased, and we covet the validation of another. A moment when we have been rejected, and covet the love and acceptance of someone we can see and hear and touch.

Stand strong my brethren. The battle is not behind us. It is in front of each of us. And we do not know where the ambush for us has been set.


Ron Shea

Men Consistently “Saw the Light” of Zane’s Reasoning, Part 3

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

We are continuing the series by Brother Ron Shea with this third installment:

REGARDING THE “CROSSLESS” GOSPEL MANTEL

For Part 1 & 2 respectively see-
What Turned Zane Hodges to This Profound “Deconstructionist” Error?

The “Deconstructionist” Gospel: Its No Coincidence

Zane Hodges has gone to be with the Lord. Bob Wilkin is the heir-apparent of the “Crossless” gospel mantel. If Bob were to return to the purity of the gospel, I believe the “Crossless” gospel would evaporate in a matter of a few years.

I believe Bob is in his early to mid fifties. As one ages, one is less likely to receive reproof from one younger than he, and more likely to respond only to an elder. This is human nature for all of us even if we don’t have a serious pride problem. Being in his early 50’s, there are likely very few men left toward whom Bob Wilkin looks up.

Just as significantly, there is a natural pride component that would be true of any of us. Bob Wilkin did not advance this heresy in a poorly thought out footnote consisting of ten words. He has articulated his position with clarity and specificity. He cannot save face by saying,

“That is not what I meant. That was a poor choice of words. Yes, I agree with what you are saying about the content of saving faith.”

It is too late for that. With the paper trail Bob has left behind him, the only way he can say that is to say, “I was wrong.”

These words do not come easily to most men. Far less to a man of intelligence who has labored to advance an errant argument and cannot dismiss his error as a poor choice of words. For example, I try to pray for John MacArthur daily, that he would repent of his error, and proclaim the true gospel. (I confess, I do not pray for him daily, but I do pray for him often.) Yet, I realize that MacArthur is a tough nut to crack. Not because his logic is so compelling. Not because his exegesis is sound. But because he is already on record, and would look ridiculous to many if he jumped ship. Pride is typically the biggest anchor holding a man in false doctrine.

And, for those of us who have known Bob, virtually every person I have ever known has perceived deep spiritual pride in Bob. He sought to make himself the epicenter of free grace… . He did not present himself as a servant to advance the ministry of others, but to get them to serve him to advance his ministry. I can’t recall meeting anyone who knew Bob and did not come away with this perception of him.

When GES was first founded, I received a letter from Bob explaining that the only way it would get off the ground was by co-operation and “networking.” He asked for referrals so that the exposure and circulation of GES would be expanded.  I mailed him the address of EVERY SINGLE PERSON I knew who was a Christian, and many who I hoped might be inclined to hear the truth.

Several years later, after The Gospel Booklet was published, I sent a copy to Bob, and asked if we could mail a copy to every one in the GES, making them aware of it if they wanted to order some for evangelism or discipleship. He wrote me and advised that “GES did not give out their mailing list.” 

I wrote Bob back explaining,

“No, you don’t need to give me the addresses. I would prepare letters and envelopes with a copy of The Gospel Booklet, and ship them to you along with the money necessary to mail all of them. You would not need to give me their addresses.”

I received Bob’s reply, telling me:

1) The members of Grace Evangelical Society would not be interested in it,
2) It was not very well written anyway, and
3) If I wanted to write a good tract, I should contact the American Tract Society and get help with it.

Of course, it is always possible that Bob was sincere in the three comments he wrote to me. That is up to each person to judge for themselves. But I perceived it as a consistent pattern and practice of Bob seeking to make himself the sole epicenter of grace. And this was not the only incident with Bob that served to persuade me of this. And I am not alone in this perception of Bob.

Nevertheless, we have a moment in time, and we should labor in prayer ten hours for every hour we spend on the “front lines” (blogging). Nebuchadnezzar was certainly a prideful man. But after being brought low, eating grass and braying like a donkey for several years, he humbled himself and acknowledged the God of Daniel.

The GES has by all external, observable evidence, lost membership and likewise significant financial support. In my opinion the GES will probably implode within two or three years. “Whom the Lord loveth, He chaseneth,” (Hebrews 12:6).

I have no doubt of God’s love of Bob Wilkin, and no doubt of Bob’s potential service to God if he returns to a biblical view of the gospel.

We should pray, not for God's reproof of Bob, but that He would work in His infinite judgment and knowledge, in the manner best suited to return Bob. This may be to bring Bob low in reproof, and it may be to bless him. (After all, “The goodness of God produces repentance” also!) The method is God’s choice. We should pray for the outcome, not the method.

If Bob returns to the gospel message, I believe the other circles emanating outward, who came under the influence of the Crossless gospel, will begin to do likewise. As I noted, Bob Wilkin is the heir-apparent of Zane’s reductionist theology.

Finally, regarding the Crossless gospel crowd, it is important that someone Bob respects will step up to the plate and confront him as Paul did Peter.

“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed,” (Gal. 2:11).

At Bob’s age, as I said, that pretty well limits the options to those 60 or over. I believe Earl Radmacher could be the man Wilkin might respond to. I recognize that his (Radmacher’s) love of Zane, his respect for Zane, and their longstanding friendship of many years, might have prevented him from taking such action while Zane was alive.

I realize the Free Grace movement has not been limited to the Dallas Theological Society (DTS) crowd. The Florida Bible College, and many of the Independent Fundamental Baptist tradition were at the forefront long before Radmacher or Ryrie stepped into a visible position on the stage.

Nevertheless, the most visible defense of the Free Grace gospel has shifted, in very high proportion, to a handful of DTS graduates. And, more than any other men living today, the mantel “Elder Statesman of the Free Grace Movement” is clearly shared by Earl Radmacher and Charles Ryrie.

Earl Radmacher may be the only living person to whom Bob Wilkin looks up. We must labor in prayer that Earl would be willing to set aside his irenic personality, and sit down with Bob for a serious talk. And if not Earl, that God would raise up someone else whom Bob respects as an equal.

If all of us who love the truth do our part, in prayer, or in confrontation (only when profitable, and only in love), the Crossless gospel movement can become a thing of the past, and the vanguards of this movement can be restored to usefulness in the spread of the gospel.

End Part 3, Please continue to Parts 4 & 5.

Men Consistently “Saw the Light” of Zane Hodges’s Reasoning, Part 3...

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Over the past week my family and I have been out of town to attend the college graduation of one of my children.

This weekend I am preparing the third installment from Ron Shea’s on-going series. Here is a sample,

“…the Crossless gospel movement can become a thing of the past, and the vanguards of this movement can be restored to usefulness in the spread of the gospel.”

Find out how in Part 3, which will be posted on Monday morning.


LM

Men Consistently “Saw the Light” of Zane’s Reasoning, Part 2

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

We continue with part two of the new series by Ron Shea. For Part 1 see- What Turned Hodges to this Profound (Deconstructionist) Error?

The “Deconstructionist” Gospel: Its No Coincidence

Brethren:

Excerpt from Part 1,

Hodges’s position on repentance is illogical, and lexically and theologically indefensible.

Zane’s Crossless/Deityless, “deconstructionist” gospel is likewise indefensible. Few (if any) men who were NOT of Zane’s inner circle of friends read his arguments and came away convinced. But his inner circle was!

In every case, when Zane Hodges adopted a position that left most free-grace advocates in stunned disbelief, the same group of inner circle men consistently “saw the light” of Zane’s reasoning. And in every case, they were men approved by Zane, and who therefore had a motive to perpetuate that validation, and not short-circuit it.

This is not a coincidence. Zane’s inner circle, many being men of able minds consistently “saw the light” . . . because IMO they sought the approval of Zane more than the approval of God.

As the waves spread outward from a pebble thrown in a pond, the “second circle” were those who may have met Zane, but more significantly, enjoyed the friendship and/or validation of one of Zane’s inner circle.

When Peter played the hypocrite, and would not eat with the gentiles, Paul saw it as no small matter.

“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed,” (Gal. 2:11).

When leaders are in error, those who respect their leadership will often follow their error. Paul withstood Peter, “to the face,” called him out, and as we would say in the Navy, “dressed him down.”

Very few believers outside of the GES group have come across Bob Wilkin’s writings on the web, or in print and walked away persuaded of the logic. But those with an emotional stake in Zane, or Bob, John Niemela, or others, have been seduced (or blinded) by the approval they receive from men whose approval they covet.

This really brings to mind two different groups of people, the “Crossless” gospel crowd in the GES, and the rest in the Free Grace camp who on biblical grounds have rejected and taken a stand against the errors and spread of the “Crossless” gospel.


END Part 2, Please continue to Part 3

Men Consistently “Saw the Light” of Zane’s Reasoning, Part 1

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

The series beginning today is a revised version of a thread comment by Brother Ron Shea, originally appearing in Evangelism with the Jehovah’s Witnesses at my Door. The series opens with the initial installment:

What Turned Hodges to this Profound (Deconstructionist) Error?

Brethren:

I have often speculated on how or why a man of Zane Hodges’s character fell to such corrupt theology.

At some time in our lives, we have ALL been in a heated argument where the other person was as “wrong as rain,” that if 10,000 people had heard the entire exchange, they would have agreed with you. And yet, your “friend” (or whomever) argued until he was blue in the face with a vigor that was undeniable, and it was clear he had chosen to believe a lie to exonerate himself. His logic may have been idiotic, but he believed it.

No one will ever know what turned Hodges to this profound (deconstructionist) error on the gospel. Is there any way to confirm such things? Could it have been an experience such as the following scenario?

Zane had been involved in a dialogue about the gospel with someone he loved. By the time that person died, he or she had assented only to the fact that Jesus offered eternal life, but had either rejected His divinity, His atoning death, or His resurrection.

It was not necessary that they rejected all three. Zane was a smart man, and would not be able to advance any kind of an argument that would eliminate one of those facts from the embodiment of saving faith from the others. (The elimination of one without the others would seem arbitrary).

The pain of his friend being in Hell was more than he could bare, and his mind began to tinker with ways to rationalize they were with the Lord. And this gave birth to the reductionist gospel known as the “Crossless” or “Promise-Only” gospel.

Is this how it happened? We will not know until we pass to the other side.

Although the free-grace movement pre-dated Zane (John Nelson Darby, C.H. MacIntosh, Harry Ironside, Lewis Sperry Chaffer), and co-dated Zane (Ray Stanford, Dick Seymour, et al.), few could deny that Zane would, today, be the elder statesmen of the free grace movement had it not been for his final departure from the historic Christian Gospel as the only message of salvation. Almost everyone in the contemporary free grace movement had been influenced by Zane’s cogent treatment of “problem” verses and books. I scheduled all of my seminary classes around my determination to take electives under Zane on Hebrews, 1st John, and James. I will never regret it. And I’m sure I am not alone in my debt to Zane.

So it was all the more that those of us who read some of Zane’s later writings, and his attempts to defend these novel theological positions . . . those of us who weighed Zane’s arguments objectively stood by and watch in disbelief. Zane’s arguments were plainly below the intellect and careful weighing of the facts that we had come to expect of him.

For Zane, we can only speculate. But as for his followers, the answer is far simpler.

In the Gospel of John, there were “secret service believers” who were unwilling to confess Him publicly, because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. I have noticed that those who have embraced the Crossless gospel were not theologians and Christians punctuating the evangelical landscape, who read the work of some unknown theologian (Zane) on the web or in print, and found the arguments compelling.

NO! The “inner circle” consisted of those men (and women) who had been embraced by Zane as a friend, and/or fellow theologian. They had an emotional stake in Zane’s friendship. Or more importantly, because Zane was a respected theologian of the first order, they had a vested emotional stake in Zane’s validation of them as theologians. To a man, people like Bob Wilkin and John Niemela somehow “saw the logic” of all of Zane Hodges’s defections.

Hodges’s position on repentance is illogical, and lexically and theologically indefensible. In Bob Wilkin’s own doctoral thesis, he had a section reviewing the existing works on the subject. In his remarks about one book, his comments incorporated a rather terse humor.

“So and so writes largely from her own emotional experience, and devotes little effort to a serious exegesis of the text.” (I read his doctoral thesis twenty years ago, so please indulge any inaccuracies in my attempt to quote the line from memory.)

I could not help but think, after reading Zane’s later discussions on repentance, that Bob’s words in his doctoral thesis described Zane’s articles to a ‘T’. Yet somehow, Zane’s inner circle, including Bob, “saw the light” of Zane’s new position.


Brother Ron Shea’s series will be continued with The “Deconstructionist” Gospel: Its No Coincidence

New Series: Men Consistently “Saw the Light” of…

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

The discussion has come to a close at the Fred Lybrand blog over his OPEN LETTER: The GES Gospel (aka- the ‘Crossless’ or ‘Promise-only’ Gospel. Elements in the thread discussion permanently identifies the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) as an aberrant sect of theological extremists that has “Drifted Far Off the Marker” of biblical orthodoxy.

GES member and national conference speaker, Antonio da Rosa, defined (in the thread) the GES reductionist system by clearly stating,

“Yes a (lost) person can…one could (consciously) deny the death and resurrection of Christ and still at that moment place His sole faith and reliance upon Jesus to guarantee his eternal destiny?” See Details Here

The GES, because of its Crossless gospel, has isolated itself into an extremist corner for its reductionist assault on the Gospel, i.e. the content of saving faith.

This week I am publishing a new multi-part series by Brother Ron Shea. The series is divided into the following chapters:

What Turned (him) to this Profound (Deconstructionist) Error?
The “Deconstructionist” Gospel
THE “Crossless” Gospel Mantle
Regarding Us
A Final Admonition

Check in later this week for the new series by Brother Ron Shea.

Yours faithfully,


LM

An OPEN LETTER: The GES Gospel (aka - the ‘Crossless’ or ‘Promise-only’ Gospel)

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

Last week the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) Executive Council announced its Open Break from the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) and its Crossless/Promise ONLY gospel.


Late last evening I received a copy of an Open Letter from FGA President Dr. Fred Lybrand to FGA President elect, Dr. Fred Chay.

The Open Letter will be available shortly for download, in its entirety (37 pages) at the Fred Lybrand blog and here at IDOTG. Here are selected excerpts for your consideration.

“It is my deepest hope that GES will repent of its recent error and return to the Free Grace Movement. Perhaps there is a future discussion to be had, and I remain hopeful; however, I want it to be abundantly clear that the GES Gospel, in its current iteration, is not something I can endorse as legitimate or supportable from the Word of God.”

“The Free Grace Movement did not start with GES, though it could end with it. If we leave the mainstream and follow the sincere, but misguided thinking of recent years, we will no longer be a Movement, but will rather star in the inevitable last act of fading away as a Monument.”

“The GES Gospel is a change in the very definition of the Gospel of Grace that violates our own FGA Covenant when it states,

‘Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.’

I was there when we formed these words together, knowing that the death and resurrection of the Savior was clearly among our concerns. I also know that it was Larry Moyer’s counsel to us that also contributed to this emphasis. In any event, believing in the finished work of Christ clearly is not the same as the GES Gospel’s notion of the gospel being nothing except ‘believing that He can guarantee one’s eternal life’. As the GES Gospel advocates point out—Jesus made this promise before He died, which means He made the promise before His work was finished. To believe the GES Gospel is to deny the Classical Free Grace understanding of the gospel through which we are eternally saved.”

There is much more that sheds light from an insider’s perspective on some previously unknown issues in and surrounding the debate within the Free Grace movement. Things that clearly define why GES is not representative of historic Free Grace theology. Things that define how GES has steadily drifted from a biblically balanced view of the Gospel of Jesus Christ thorough reductionist thinking

Following are the opening paragraphs from the Open Letter.

Dear Dr. Chay,

Fred, at your request I am finally, and reluctantly, addressing the issue concerning the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) and the ‘crossless gospel’, so called. I say ‘so called’ because I would name it the GES Gospel. I am not aware of it being held by anyone, anywhere, in history; it is solely owned and promoted by GES. Of course, I am sure that when most GES folks present the gospel, they include a mention of Christ’s death and resurrection. However, when one asks, “What must one believe to be saved?” --- Then the cross and resurrection are clearly unnecessary pieces of information for saving faith and eternal salvation in the GES Gospel view. And as any objective person can see, eventually this line of thinking will invade their presentation of the saving message.

I am aware that you attended a meeting involving a number of folks to attempt to look at the text surrounding (especially) GES and its novel view of the Gospel by which we are eternally saved. I am very thankful that you were invited to attend the meeting, since as you know, in the past we have offered to sponsor such collegial and academic discussions to no avail. It is my deepest hope that GES will repent of its recent error and return to the Free Grace Movement. Perhaps there is a future discussion to be had, and I remain hopeful; however, I want it to be abundantly clear that the GES Gospel, in its current iteration, is not something I can endorse as legitimate or supportable from the Word of God.

I’m sure they might take exception as to whether or not they have left the Movement, but the fact is that GES is no longer mainstream (if it ever was) regarding those who have been patently ‘free grace’ throughout history. In particular, traditional and mainstream Free Grace leaders such as Dr. Chafer, Dr. Ryrie, and Dr. Radmacher are all in print as affirming the necessity of faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross regarding one’s deliverance from eternal damnation. My suspicion is that many folks involved with the Grace Evangelical Society are simply unaware (as was I) that profound doctrinal shifts in the organization have occurred since 1999, culminating in sweeping doctrinal changes in their Statement (August 2005) and the recent attacks (the Hydra-headed article and the review of JB Hixson’s book) against those who disagree with the GES reformulation of The Gospel of Grace. (links added)

The Open Letter from FGA President Dr. Fred Lybrand to FGA President elect, Dr. Fred Chay is available for download below.

Bible-believing Christians all across evangelical Christianity can be thankful for men who are coming forward to clarify the crux of the doctrinal controversy.

Lord willing the advocates of the GES “Crossless” gospel can recovered from and repent of the errors they currently propagate. While we wait the Gospel of Grace will go forward in truth and in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Yours faithfully,


LM

Visit the Fred Lybrand blog to view the on-going discussion there.

DOWNLOAD HERE:

For the MS Word version download: The GES Gospel (aka - the ‘Crossless’ or ‘Promise-only’ Gospel)

For the PDF format download: The GES Gospel (aka - the ‘Crossless’ or ‘Promise-only’ Gospel)

The Lord’s Deity & Saving Work: Casualties of GES Reductionist Heresy

Dear Guests of IDOTG:

In The FGA Announces Open Break with the GES one of our contributors JanH responded to a comment posted by another friend of IDOTG, Jason. Jason posted the following (excerpted) comment in the FGA Breaks with the GES thread.

“God bless, first and foremost.

Lou, just to be clear, I spoke with Wilkin not long ago, and asked this question about some nameless person or some random person named Jesus promising eternal life...He (Wilkin) told me personally, ‘No Jason, You must believe that it is Jesus Christ, for nobody else has the authority to offer eternal life.’

I’m not sure what’s been published, but I specifically brought this issue to light with Bob, and he made clear that the unsaved must believe the promise of Jesus Christ.”

Jan posted a reply to Jason that I feel is very helpful and deserves exposure as a stand alone article. What follows is Jan’s reaction, to what Bob Wilkin stated to Jason. This, in no way, should be considered critical toward Jason, for it is not.


Hi Jason-

I don’t believe I have had the pleasure of interacting with you yet. I am kind of new around here.

Regarding what Wilkin said to you:

“He told me personally, ‘No Jason, You must believe that it is Jesus Christ, for nobody else has the authority to offer eternal life’.”

What Lou said is correct, (which was):

“Much of what you noted from Wilkin is GES mantra speak. Please note what you attributed to Wilkin, “…he made clear that the unsaved must believe the promise of Jesus Christ.” It is the promise of eternal life that is the object of faith for the GES camp. Notice that he does not insist the lost know and believe that Jesus Christ is deity. That is by design and with purpose.”

Some time ago Lou posted an article on the change in the GES doctrinal statement. I don’t know how to post a link, but the article is on November 28, 2008 and called Grace Evangelical Society’s Reductionist Affirmation of Belief. By comparing the original version with the revised version you can see that many orthodox doctrines have become casualties of the GES reductionist heresy.

Lou begins with this:

Until August 2005 the official Grace Evangelical Society (GES) Affirmation of Beliefs on the doctrine of salvation was stated as follows (*abbreviated form):

“Jesus Christ, God incarnate, paid the full penalty for man’s sin when He died on the cross of Calvary. Any person who, in simple faith, trusts in the risen Christ as his or her only hope of heaven, refusing to trust in anything else, receives the gift of eternal life, which once granted, can never be lost.

The sole condition for receiving eternal salvation from hell is faith (trust) in the Lord Jesus Christ, Who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man's sin and rose from the dead (John 3:16-18; 6:47; Acts 16:31).”

That previous statement was revised. Following is the current version of the GES Affirmation of Beliefs.

“The sole condition for receiving everlasting life is faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ, who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man’s sin and rose bodily from the dead (John 3:16-18; 6:47; Acts 16:31).

Faith is the conviction that something is true. To believe in Jesus (‘he who believes in Me has everlasting life’) is to be convinced that He guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it (John 4:14; 5:24; 6:47 ; 11:26; 1 Tim. 1:16).”

In the former Affirmation, “Jesus Christ” is identified as deity by use of the term, “God incarnate.” This reference to the Lord’s deity has been deleted from the current Affirmation. (End Quote)

Affirmations of Belief are not like furnished rooms that are redecorated just ‘cause. One would only change it if a need was seen to do so, such as a doctrinal change that had occurred within the group that the existing Affirmation no longer reflected. This is what happened here. There was nothing wrong with the original Affirmation. They have changed their views. So they took a perfectly good statement and revised it to better reflect their new position, notably removing this clear orthodox statement “Jesus Christ, God incarnate paid the full penalty for man’s sin when He died on the cross of Calvary,” and not even replacing it. And notably changing this clear orthodox statement “The sole condition for receiving eternal salvation from hell...” and replacing it with “The sole condition for receiving everlasting life...” (thereby removing the consequences of not trusting Christ.)

What they have done is cause their AoB to emphasize the promise of eternal life more than anything else, even to making the death of Christ on the cross secondary to faith in the person of Christ, removing reference to the consequences of not trusting Christ and greatly diminishing the understanding of Jesus Christ's deity (they did leave “Lord” in there.) There is no good reason to do this.

On February 3rd and 9th Lou posted an article of mine If Anyone Eats of This Bread, where I took up the issue of Wilkin saying that some FG adherents,

“...limit the essentials about the Person and work of Christ-arbitrarily-to three points: Jesus’ deity, His death on the cross for our sins, and His bodily resurrection from the dead.”

He (Wilkin) said this in the November/December 2008 issue of Grace in Focus.

My article was about the need for preaching Christ crucified, but the point here is that Wilkin called the cross, the resurrection and the deity of Christ “arbitrary” points in the gospel.

So with all this stuff in print, along with Antonio da Rosa (who is given a platform to speak at the GES conference even with his Mormon Jesus comment) I would say Wilkin’s verbal answer to you was blowing smoke.

There are many doctrinal casualties in the changed GES position. One of them is indeed the deity of Christ.


JanH