Pursuit of Truth

Rachel on Feb 11th 2008

I just wanted to let readers know that I have started my own blog, The Land of Reason. I’ll still be posting here occasionally, but mostly I’ll be over there. I’ll be starting a somewhat lengthy series on the “crossless” gospel, called “A Case For the Cross”. I also have some other things I’d like to post about later on. So I thought I’d start my own blog, so that all this stuff isn’t posted under someone else’s name. 

See ya’ll soon!

Rachel on Dec 14th 2007

We frequently hear the idea that “salvation is by grace through faith”. But what exactly is “grace”? More specifically, what is biblical grace? The most common definitions I have heard are “unmerited favor”, “getting something we don’t deserve”, or “God’s Riches At Christ’s Expense”. I would not say these definitions are necessarily wrong, but do they really give us the full picture? Do we truly understand the biblical concept of grace?

 An important thing to remember is that our western culture today is vastly different than the culture of Bible times. Cultures closer to that of the Bible include the Japanese culture, as well as most Middle Eastern countries/cultures. It is vital that we not insert our cultural meanings into the biblical text when they are not warranted (and they usually aren’t!). The Context Group is “a working group of international scholars committed to the use of the social sciences in biblical interpretation.” John Pilch and Bruce Malina (members of The Context Group) are editors of a book entitled Handbook of Biblical Social Values. It is a very fascinating and valuable book, I highly recommend it to everyone. In this book Malina describes for us how “grace” was viewed in ANE culture and what is meant by the biblical authors when they use the term. The following is a quote from the book, pp. 89-90. I think it sheds some light on the idea that God’s grace has “no strings attached”, the idea that God’s grace can produce a Christian who has no good works. The information here is also helpful in understanding the difference between what God gives to all and what he gives only to those who believe in Jesus. From the book:

[Grace] refers to the outcomes of the value process called patronage. What clients seek of patrons is favor, and grace is favor. Favor might be defined as receiving something, either that could not otherwise be obtained at all, or on terms more advantageous than could otherwise be obtained. Favoritism is the main quality of patron-client relationships. … The New Testament is heavily sprinkled with the vocabulary of favoritism, such as reward, gift, grace (a word occurring only in Luke 1 and 2, Acts, Paul, and John’s prologue: 1:14, 16-17) and the like. Perhaps due to Paul, the most obvious terms for the favoritism of God’s patronage and its outcomes are the vocabulary of “grace”.  …

Considering the cultural presuppositions of “all goods are limited” and the “debt of gratitude” involved in giving, it would seem there really were no “free” gifts in the ancient world. All “gifts” implied obligations to the giver, including gifts from God. From a cultural perspective, such gifts were made with strings attached. This is what patronage is about. God’s “grace”, that is his willingness to be patron, implies vertical social standing since only the “haves” can give-in and serve as patrons to the “have-nots”. Being patron presupposes a want or need of a favor on the part of the client. Both the baptism of John and Jesus’ proclamation of God’s kingdom are premised on such a need of favor from God.

 Charisma is the “favor” or gift-with-strings-attached that results from a patron in some upper social stratum giving to a client, one of a lower stratum. It is always a donation-with-strings-attached because all goods are limited. Thus, the God of Israel never simply “gives” in his interpersonal relationships with humans. He always “gives-in”, because the God of Israel is patron in vertical dyadic relation with his [seemingly]arbitrarily chosen client. While God may have a need to give-in since he is honorable, he really has no need to give. And he really cannot “give” since “to give” necessarily presumes sheer equality, truly balanced reciprocity. If ”to give freely” means to want nothing in return, then the God of Israel does not do this – and neither do people in peasant societies or in the contemporary Third World.

Theologically, to say God takes the initiative in giving grace means that he gives-in first. Minimally this image means God seeks the good-will, the openness of the one wanting or needing the “giving-in”. The kingdom of heaven announced by Jesus indicates that the God of Israel is ready “to give-in again”, as divine Patron. In the Pauline tradition, of course, the main difference between charis and charisma is that charis, God’s readiness to be Patron, is shown to all human beings, while charisma, actual favor or patronage, comes to those “in Christ Jesus”.

That last sentence also gives us a good indicator of how the Bible views our salvation. Charis is given to all, in that God is ready and willing to be the patron to all. But charisma is only given to those ”in Christ Jesus”, such that saving grace is only bestowed upon those who believe in Jesus. One can see here that there is no room for “judicially pardoned but not personally forgiven”. This concept has no idea of someone who is not condemned but still lacks personal forgiveness from the patron. Understanding the cultural aspects of these terms greatly aids our understanding and interpretation of the true biblical meaning of the words, which in turn facilitates a more accurate theology.

Rachel on Dec 14th 2007

As part of the discussion of whether or not the content of saving faith includes the finished crosswork of Jesus, as well as the issue of whether or not ALL sins were actually paid for at the cross, I brought up Romans 3:25, which states that Jesus is our propitiation “through faith in His blood”. Someone on Rose’s blog referred me to an article by Zane Hodges in which he addresses this verse. This person said that this article also represented Alvin’s view, although Alvin has yet to confirm or deny that. The following is my reply to that article, which I originally wrote as a comment on Rose’s blog. Again, anyone is welcome to comment, but I am specifically interested in someone who agrees with Alvin giving an answer to my reply.

I see and agree that “hilasterion” (translated “propitiation”) in Rom. 3:25 refers to the mercy seat. But I am unclear on how this makes a difference. My point is that Rom. 3:25 clearly states that Jesus’ propitiation of our sin is applied through faith in the propitiation (the blood of Jesus). It seems to me that Hodges is claiming that “propitiation” is actually two steps, the first step being the actual payment of our sins (Jesus’ death), and the second step being where Jesus “introduces” us to God or mediates between us and God. He then seems to be claiming that the “propitiation” in Rom. 3:25 ONLY refers to the “second step”, due to the use of the word for mercy seat (hilasterion), and that God said he would “meet” with his people at the mercy seat.

I first want to point out a quote by Hodges from that article:

“Without at all criticizing the choice of word order by NKJV and NASV, it nevertheless remains true that the Greek word order is significant. Paul is basically connecting the words through faith with the word for mercy seat (hilasterion). That is to say, Jesus Christ becomes the New Covenant equivalent of the mercy seat through faith.”

This is important because Hodges here is acknowledging that Romans 3:25 clearly states that Jesus becomes our propitiation (or “mercy seat”) through faith. Hodges goes on to say that he thinks this refers to a specific aspect of propitiation (which I explain further below), but I will also refute that idea. The point to remember here is that even Hodges concedes that Romans 3:25 is clear in that whatever the verse means by “propitiation”, Jesus only becomes such propitiation by faith (and I would further say it is faith “in His blood” according to the verse). So if I can show that “propitiation” here refers to the entire atonement for our sins, and not merely one certain aspect, then this verse clearly refutes the idea that Jesus’ propitiation applies to unbelievers.

IF my summary above of Hodges’ article is correct, I guess my answer contains 3 points. First, I don’t think such a bifurcation of propitiation is warranted. The separation seems artificial, and solely to bolster Hodges’ already-held view. I don’t think such a distinction would ever be set forth if the theology that requires it wasn’t already in place.

Second, I don’t see the focus of the mercy seat as the place where anyone is “introduced” to God. When Paul’s readers saw the word and thought of “mercy seat”, I don’t think they separated in their minds the payment (or passing over, as was the case in the OT) of their sins from the ability to meet with God. The mercy seat contained all of those aspects in one. The blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled on the mercy seat, at once covering their sins AND allowing God to meet with them. I just do not see how the use of the word for “mercy seat” somehow means ONLY God meeting with the believer and not ALSO the payment of sins.

Third, and the more I think about this I think this point is most pertinent, Hodges quotes Exodus 25 (although the article says “Exodus 5″), when God is giving instructions to Moses on how to build the tabernacle, what all should be in it, and how it all should be constructed. God tells Moses specifically, “There I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel.” This seems to indicate a special, non-routine occurrence of God meeting with Moses specifically, in order to give him commandments for the nation of Israel. In contrast, when God prescribes the Law of Atonement, or sin offering, that the Israelites were to do each year (in Lev. 16), God says nothing at all about meeting the priest at the mercy seat. All that is said is the instructions on how to sprinkle the blood on the seat, the scapegoat, the cleaning up of the priest doing the killing, and what to do with the animal after the offering was made. There is NO indication that God “met with” the priest each and every year that he sprinkled the blood on the mercy seat. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, I think we see that the “meeting” God planned in Exodus 25 was a unique meeting with Moses specifically, in order to give him information that he was to pass on to Israel. Thus my second point above is further solidified, in that the readers of Romans, when they saw the word hilasterion (”mercy seat”), would have thought of the atonement in general. There is no evidence that the mercy seat was considered or even intended as some sort of annual meeting place between God and man. So it’s not just that Paul’s readers wouldn’t have separated the “meeting with God” aspect from the “atonement for sins” aspect, it’s that they never would have thought of a “meeting with God” aspect in the first place, because that’s simply not what happened at the mercy seat!

Rachel on Dec 14th 2007

 I have another article on this blog regarding this issue. Lately I have been discussing this at Rose’s blog with a few people. It was mainly my discussion with Alvin that gave rise to the following questions/points. So far, no one has responded to these points, and the thread where I posted this comment is extremely long, so it is easy for my comment to get lost and be difficult for potential responders to find. I am truly interested in how the following questions would be answered by those who hold the opposite view, but of course anyone is welcome to comment…

1) Alvin says, “…I’ve stated there is no judicial condemnation concerning sin.” What then of this verse:

Romans 8:1 “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” The previous chapter was discussing sin. Paul then indicates that “those who are in Christ Jesus” have no condemnation, implying that those who are NOT “in Christ Jesus” ARE under condemnation. Are you now saying that there are two kinds of condemnation?

Later, Alvin elaborated on this somewhere, and he seemed to be saying that “in Christ Jesus” meant “abiding in Christ Jesus”, such that if we are out of fellowship with Christ, then we are under condemnation, but if we are in fellowship with Christ, then there is no condemnation. If this is correct, this doesn’t help his case because now you have a Christian being under this “condemnation”, and I know of no place in the Bible where believers are said to be under “condemnation”. In addition, I assume he is defining “condemnation” as something OTHER than eternal condemnation. Can anyone give contextual proof that Romans 8 is speaking of this “other” condemnation (and define it please)? For that matter, can you give scriptural proof of this “other” condemnation?

EDIT: Alvin attempted an answer to this on Rose’s blog by saying that Rom. 8:1 does NOT refer to eternal condemnation but merely temporal condemnation of believers who stray from the truth, sin, “walk according to the flesh”, etc. He also listed some verses that speak of the believer being condemned. I am pasting in my reply to his answer here, for ease of reference and to keep it all in one place. My reply:

Your interpretation of Romans 8:1 simply does not stand up to proper exegesis. First, you err in reading this verse only in the KJV. The earliest manuscripts do not have the added section, “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”. The consensus of scholars is that this phrase is an interpolation, added later by scribes. Note that it is exactly the same as the end of Romans 8:4. At the least, it is very uncertain if that phrase is in there.

Secondly, and this point is most pertinent and makes more clear that the phrase in question doesn’t belong, you err in reading all these verses only in English. The word for “condemnation” in Rom. 8:1 is “katakrima” (Strong’s #2631), meaning “damnatory sentence, condemnation”. This word is only used in Romans, and it is used 2 other times. Here are the other 2 places:

Romans 5:16 “The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.”

Romans 5:18 “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.”

In both of these verses, “condemnation” is clearly referring to eternal condemnation, i.e. condemnation to hell. Since this is how Paul uses this word, it goes against principle to say that he used the word differently in only the one place of Rom 8:1.

In addition, the word translated as “condemnation” in all the other verses you cited that spoke of believers is a different Greek word. The Gk. word in those other verses is “krima” (Strong’s #2917) and has the following meanings:

- a decree, judgments
- judgment
- condemnation of wrong, the decision (whether severe or mild) which one passes on the faults of others
- in a forensic sense
- the sentence of a judge
- the punishment with which one is sentenced
- condemnatory sentence, penal judgment, sentence
- a matter to be judicially decided, a lawsuit, a case in court

“Krima” is most often translated as “judgment”, but also as “condemnation”, “lawsuits”, and “sentence”. So “krima” has the idea of passing down a judgment or a negative sentence. Certainly believers can have this happen to them, as the verses you quoted indicate. But “katakrima” is different and carries solely the idea of eternal damnation/condemnation. This definitely cannot happen to believers, it is only for unbelievers.

So when we do proper exegesis of the original Greek, comparing Scripture with Scripture and discovering how the biblical author uses his words, we find that in Romans 8:1 Paul is clearly speaking of eternal condemnation. He states plainly that this condemnation does not fall on those who are “in Christ Jesus”, therefore we can deduce that those who are NOT “in Christ Jesus” (i.e. unbelievers) DO have this condemnation upon them. Believers can bring judgment upon themselves, but NEVER eternal condemnation. Unbelievers, however, are already under eternal condemnation. Your assertion that unbelievers are not condemned is clearly contradicted by Scripture.

2) Alvin is saying that no one is under judicial condemnation, yet no one has judicial forgiveness either (until they believe). So a lost person would seem to be, in his position, in some kind of “neutral” state, not judicially condemned, but not judicially forgiven either. I do not see this kind of neutral state anywhere in Scripture. In fact, John 3:18 indicates that people are either condemned or not condemned.

Later, Alvin modified this to say that there is no such thing as judicial forgiveness. What about a judicial pardon, isn’t that like forgiveness? But even if we accept his premise, my point still stands. His theology still has the lost person in some sort of neutral state, not condemned, but not yet forgiven. I do not see any evidence of such neutrality in Scripture.

3) For what purpose then did Jesus die? How did His death change anything practically for us? If he really did pay for everyone’s sins and no one has to pay for them anymore, yet people still go to hell, how did his death help anything? If Jesus was going to actually take away the sin problem, why didn’t he take it away completely so that we don’t have to go to hell anymore? Alvin claims that my gospel is “empty” because if people don’t believe in Jesus, then the cross becomes of no effect to them. But in his gospel, if people don’t believe in Jesus, the cross doesn’t have any practical effect for them either, because they still go to hell.

4) His position seems to make God rather rude and arbitrary, to send people to hell when they have no sin (judicially). I have personally discussed Christianity with many people whose biggest problem with Christianity is that people are sent to hell merely for not believing the right thing, when there are a multitude of reasons why people believe or don’t believe certain things, including geographical location, family, friends, etc. His position lends credence to that objection. Whereas my position says that “believing the right thing” isn’t the issue per se, it’s the transaction that occurs as a result of believing the right thing, i.e. your sins are forgiven and you are no longer under them, while lack of belief condemns you, not because of lack of belief per se, but because of the lack of the necessary transaction, i.e. you are still in your sins and must account for them before God.

5) Alvin says that the lost still need justification and forgiveness of sin. How then can he maintain that sin no longer separates us from God? If God has not forgiven our sin, then it is sin that separates us from a right relationship with God. Thus it would be obvious that we would need to understand and accept our problem (that of sin), and also understand and accept the remedy (Jesus’ death) in order to receive the forgiveness we need. If we “need” forgiveness and justification, as he said, why and how can we be given that forgiveness and justification if we don’t even know about our need, or possibly don’t even agree that we need it?

6) If God no longer condemns us for our sin, why doesn’t He also forgive us? He gave the illustration of the judge who declares the car thief “not guilty” but doesn’t forgive him personally for stealing his (the judge’s) car. Again, this seems kind of rude and arbitrary of God. Why doesn’t he forgive us? If He declares us “not guilty” on the basis of Jesus’ death alone regardless of our belief, why then does He withhold personal forgiveness? It’s like God put a “catch” in the fine print, e.g. “Good news! No more condemnation for your sin!*” Where the “*” says in fine print at the bottom, “However, I still do not personally forgive you for your sin, so you’re still on your way to hell.”

7) A new point I would like to add: the idea that there is such a thing as “judicial pardon” but no personal forgiveness from God was foreign to the biblical writers and audience. The culture of the ANE did not consider God as someone to have a personal relationship with. In fact, the Bible describes our relationship with God in terms of a client-patron relationship. “In the NT, the relationship between God, Jesus, and believer is framed in terms of a client-patron relationship. God is the patron (like the big rich guy who gives gifts); the believer is the client (who gets the gifts, and in turn is loyal to and serves the patron); Jesus is the broker — who is a go-between for the two, and who acts upon the authority of the patron.” (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mattstudy.html ) People in Bible times did not “get to know each other personally” like we do today, they certainly would never have expected to “know God personally”. ANE culture was group-oriented, as opposed to our individualistic society of today. Now, I am NOT saying that we cannot know God personally. But I AM saying that the biblical authors and audience never had in mind the idea of people needing some kind of personal forgiveness from God in addition to some kind of judicial group pardon. Alvin’s example of the judge pardoning the car thief judicially, but not personally forgiving the thief for stealing his car, is simply not part of the mindset of the ANE peoples. Such a thing would simply not have happened, at the very least they would never have thought of God acting like the judge in that scenario. So this idea of personal forgiveness over and above judicial pardon is anachronistic and not found in the Bible.

8 ) In the illustration Alvin referred to of the man on death row being issued a pardon, he said that the illustration didn’t work for my side because in such a situation, if the man had truly been issued a pardon, he would be freed whether he accepted it personally or not. So is he saying then that even though we, the lost sinners, have been issued a pardon by God and are truly “free” from sin judicially, we must be transferred to a different prison and pay the same penalty (death) for a different crime (unbelief/lack of life)?

Jesse Camacho on Nov 15th 2007

This question is generally directed to proponents of the Hodges/Wilkin variety of free-grace theology or to anyone who would affirm substantially similar teachings (though anyone is free to comment of course). With an eye toward Lordship teachings or anything in general, is there any truth at all that a free-grace saved recipient of eternal life (heaven bound) could deny, any teaching that could be affirmatively rejected, or any action committed that would cause you to Scripturally question their salvation?

For example, some might say that one must believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or in the deity of Christ, or that you are a sinful person, and that you are deserving of the Lake of Fire in order to be saved. Some may say that you must deny yourself and take up your cross. You may say that none of those is required to be justified. But can any of those or anything else be affirmatively denied by a purportedly  saved person while maintaining confidence that such a person is saved?

Can the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 year-old, or other unlearned individual ever affirm whatever you think needs to be affirmed, be ignorant of the things that you think a Lordship proponent would say is necessary in the first place, but then later learn more and get to the point where [s]he affirmatively denies X that would cause you to think that if they died immediately that they might not go to heaven?

On a side note, I’d like to say thank you to the authors of the Wordpress plugin “The Holy Scripturizer,” to wit Dean Peters, ported by Glen Davis, and updated by Laurence O’Donnell. Thier plugin automatically hyperlinks plain old typed-in Scripture references to BibleGateway throughout this entire blog.

Rachel on Nov 10th 2007

The “refined free grace” people are calling for “exegetical evidence” and “Scriptural proof” from the traditional free grace people that belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus is necessary for the lost to be born again. They insist we provide specific, clear, concise statements from Scripture for our position.

But what I have yet to see is the same kind of evidence for their position. Where is the verse that says, “Believe that Jesus can give you eternal life, and you have eternal life”? What person in the Bible stated that they believe that Jesus can give them eternal life, and they were immediately granted such? And please do not give me John 6:47. All it says is what the believer in Jesus possesses. It does not say what it is that a person must believe about Jesus in order to receive that gift. And remember, any evidence you attempt to provide must meet your own rules: it can’t be a hodge-podge of different verses patched together (preferably just one verse), no Greek (has to be simple), and the less of “man’s logic” the better.

 So, the challenge is here. Anyone want to try to convince me?

Rachel on Nov 6th 2007

If you think that the lost do not need to know or believe the death and resurrection of Jesus to be born again/saved/receive eternal life (whichever phrase helps you answer the question appropriately), what kind of evidence would convince you otherwise? Many have asked for “evidence” that the lost do need to know this information, and/or evidence that the content of saving faith has changed. I think it would be helpful to know what type of evidence you would consider convincing? Do you need a specific quote from Jesus or an apostle? Does it have to be something found in John? Please comment here what it would take to convince you that the lost do indeed need to know and believe the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Rachel on Nov 4th 2007

You hold to the view that to receive eternal life, a person must simply believe that Jesus alone can give you eternal life. My question is, why do we not already have eternal life? Perhaps it would be helpful to define what you mean by “eternal life”. I think we all agree that we will all live forever somewhere, either heaven or hell. So what do you mean when you say that we need “eternal life”, and why do we not already have this life? What separates us from the “eternal life” that we need?

 Bob Wilkin/GES have stated that when Jesus died, at that moment he actually paid for all of mankind’s sins, such that our sin no longer separates us from God (this is true for all people, believers and unbelievers, he says). Does anyone reading this agree with that? If so, please note your agreement because I have more questions about that.

knetknight on Nov 1st 2007

As someone who is steeped in this debate, I appreciate everyone who has come here to present their view. I’m pleased that both sides are represented as I’m a firm believer in getting answers directly from the horse’s mouth so-to-speak. The debate seems to boil down to “What must the lost man believe, in this age/dispensation, to receive everlasting life?” To be clear, I am not asking what do we “tell” the lost man, but what of what he is told must he accept as true for him to effectively “believe in Jesus” for everlasting salvation?

knetknight on Oct 17th 2007

The question: “Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection necessary for salvation?”

Note that Jeremy Myers, a GES staff member, is on the panel defending the position that such belief is not req’d.

http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/10/free-grace-alliance-sponsors-panel.html

Rachel on Oct 15th 2007

Tom Stegall is a pastor who adheres to Free-Grace theology. I’m still not sure if I fall in that category or not, I guess it all depends on definitions. Either way though,  Stegall aligns himself with Free-Grace, as does Bob Wilkin. Yet Stegall is very much opposed to Wilkin’s reductionist view of the gospel, called the “Crossless Gospel” by Stegall and others. Stegall has put together some excellent articles in the form of a 5-part series on this issue. The links to each part are below. I would strongly encourage any reader of this blog to follow those links and thoughtfully read each of them. Stegall does a great job explaining and documenting exactly what Wilkin, Hodges, et al. believe, then he thoroughly refutes their position. Terrific articles.

Crossless Gospel Part 1

Crossless Gospel Part 2

Crossless Gospel Part 3

Crossless Gospel Part 4

Crossless Gospel Part 5

Jesse Camacho on Sep 30th 2007

As my first post states, the impetus for this blog was that Dr. Wilkin came to my church (God’s church, I’m a member) (Antioch Bible Baptist Church) to give a talk related to evangelizing tips.  That was back in early June.  This is pretty much October.  What is the big deal?  Why am I talking about this, and why now?

One of the main reasons is that our church issued a doctrinal statement a few weeks after his talk.  That doctrinal statement included the following language:

After several meetings with the Pastoral Staff and deacons, it was determined that the concerns that Dr. Wilkin is a false teacher are not accurate and that his views do fall within the realm of conservative, evangelical Christian doctrine.

(emphasis added).  But Dr. Wilkin’s teachings are not accurate, and his views do not fall within the realm of conservative evangelical Christian doctrine.  Many people have decided to leave Antioch based on this statement.  Based solely on the events surrounding Wilkin’s talk?  Maybe not.  But that is actually even more significant.  It should not be a small thing to leave a church.  Sometimes and for some, it is, but sheep are members of a flock.  Sheep don’t just bounce around from flock to flock.  When people become a member of a church, leaving should be no small deal.  Surely there are aspects of church governance, music, programs, etc. that almost everyone has some issue with.  But they stay.  They realize that such things are not worth leaving the flock, and searching to be bound by a new shepherd.  Hebrews 13:17.  So it’s even more significant that this event gave rise to the leaving of some who have stayed at a church for a long time despite feelings or opinions about other aspects of church (not even necessarily Antioch per se).  Regarding timing, I have spent about 4 months studying aspects of salvation. 

Note, the statement is broad.  It does not say something like “Dr. Wilkin’s talk does not include any statement that runs afoul our Statement of Belief” (though it does – see my first post).  Rather, it affirms that his views fall within the realm of conservative evangelical Christianity.

So after doing a fair amount of research, I found myself asking many people I know about salvation.  I’d ask other students at seminary, professors, friends, whomever.  And things got to the point that I wanted to crystallize my thoughts, and expose them for comment. 

Am I wrong?  Is Bob Wilkin wrong?  Has Antioch made an error in affirming Bob Wilkin’s views?  Have we affirmed views that are in fact not only not within the realm of conservative, evangelical Christianity; but actually incompatible with not only our Statement of Faith, but the Holy Scriptures?  If the Antioch’s affirmation was in err, what should be done?  What about the people who have left? 

I hope to flesh out these topics more thoroughly in other posts, but summarily, I perceive the gospel message itself as having been attacked.  Right now, I don’t have a great motivation to leave.  Rather, I want to help defend the gospel.  Maybe I’m wrong.  I’m teachable.  But here is something that Wilkin has said himself:

“Jesus made it clear that the only condition [for salvation] is being convinced that He guarantees eternal life to all who believe in Him. Add anything to that and you have a different gospel.” (http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1998ii/J21-98d.htm Wilkin, JOTGES Autumn 1998)

Based on this statement, I embrace “a different gospel,” and to the best of my knowledge, so does Antioch.  Bob Wilkin should have known that our statement of faith says that we believe that salvation “is wholly apart from works and is upon the sole condition of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and never without genuine repentance.”  (http://www.antiochbbc.org/about/).  Wilkin’s writings indicate that he would not affirm our “never without genuine repentance” wording, and also indicate that he does not in fact think that salvation comes by “faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”  His view is that one is saved when they mentally assent to a promise:  that Jesus can give them eternal life.  So why did he come?  Why did he want to take a picture with our class?  He should know our statement of faith by now.  Why did he publish that picture on his website. (http://www.faithalone.org/partners/07_07.pdf). 

In poor blog form, this post is not brief, and touches on more than one subject.  But I want to log my thoughts anyway.  Please comment.  Here is a forum.  I also want to highlight a light-shedding post by Rachel.  Please read it.

What’s the big deal? The Gospel is the big deal. Salvation itself is at the heart of this discussion. If even one lost soul has a misplaced security because of Dr. Wilkin’s talk, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses son, whose mother was in the audience and received [bad] witnessing advice, then corrective action needs to be taken.

Jesse

knetknight on Sep 27th 2007

The following is the essential content of an e-mail I just sent to Antonio da Rosa who contacted me to answer questions about GES and misconceptions of their views. It summarizes my views much more concisely than the e-mail I wrote to all of us a few days ago. I invited Antonio to participate on this blog and post this that all may see what I told him. Antonio is not an official representative of GES but does advocate their views.

I have exchanged a couple of e-mails with Bob Wilkin asking him direct questions about his/GES’ position on the required content of the Gospel. Bob Wilkin replied in clear language that “believe in Jesus”, even void of it’s content and context, will save you and at that we sharply disagree. The book of John starts, ends, and is filled throughout with miracles and terms establishing Jesus’ deity. The intended primary audience appears to be the Jews who lived in an ocean of context by which to properly understand Jesus’ plea to “believe in him”. When Paul preached on Mars Hill however he backed the truck up to The Creation because the gentiles had to have that context filled-in for them for any such belief to be meaningful.

I believe “The Gospel” is clearly outlined in 1 Cor 15:3-4. Yes, I know that GES and it’s advocates have explanations that they believe take this passage out of the sphere of justification. I’ve read those explanations and believe they twist the context.

Thus, regarding my concerns with him, I don’t see how I could possibly have a misconception of his views since my conclusion is based on nothing more or less than what he told me directly and by what he has written or endorsed on his own site. I have a verifiable disagreement with him, not a mere misunderstanding. What remains is to prove that I am wrong. I obviously believe at this point it’s BW/GES who is wrong. I simultaneously acknowledge that Bob was honest, sincere, and respectful in his e-mails to me. Thus I do not think he’s intentionally misleading anyone but is rather honestly mistaken. However, honestly mistaken is still mistaken and the gospel is not something I take lightly to be mistaken about.

If you’d like to dialog with “us” then you may certainly do so at blog.jessecamacho.com. Jesse is a friend of mine who recently started this blog to chronicle our findings. I cannot say I agree or will agree with Jesse on EVERYTHING he blogs, it’s HIS blog, but we do agree on what we view as GES’ fundamental error – reducing saving faith to mere intellectual assent of a truth void of it’s content and context. Empty faith does not save anyone, does not restore the relationship to God, so GES’ gospel is invalid. It assures people they are saved when they in fact may not be, a heinous thing to falsely assure someone, and so is not something I can just agree to disagree about.

Jesse Camacho on Sep 22nd 2007

Here is a 2005 article by Bob Wilkin that seems to part of a larger work.  The article includes these headings:

III. Realize that Faith Really Is Intellectual Assent
IV. Avoid the Trust Trap

In this article, Wilkin makes clear that all that a person needs to believe are the facts about the gospel.  Have you ever heard from the pulpit:  “faith is not merely intellectually assent” or “head knowledge”?  It is to Bob Wilkin.  Read his the substance under this third heading.  He reaffirms “Anyone who believes that Jesus guarantees eternal life to all who believe in Him for it believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.”  Some might say “see, Bob Wilkin does qualify what he means, and he says that you must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.”  Sounds good, until you realize that Bob Wilkin defines that collective phrase “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” to mean “that Jesus guarantees eternal life to all who believe in Him for it.”

Under Section IV, he says “If we lose our grip on faith, then we lose our grip on the good news. We cannot evangelize clearly if we think faith is more than intellectual assent, that it is more than believing facts, or that it is anything other than being convinced that the saving message is true.”  (emphasis added).

Be mindful.  Faith, however, is more that head knowledge, or intellectual assent.  To have faith that Jesus saved you is for you to trust that His dying for your sins is a sufficient reason for God to allow you into His Kingdom.  Do you realize that Jesus actually become sin?  “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.  Gal 3:13.  “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”  2 Cor 5:21.  Everyone, this is why Jesus agonized in Gethsemane.  He knew that the Father was too holy to be one with sin.  And for a time, when Jesus was on the cross, somehow, when He became sin, the unity of Jesus and the Father was somehow disrupted for a time.  Jesus lived a sinless life.  Thus, He did not have to died.  But He did, and did so to pay a dept that you cannot pay b/c you deserve to die b/c you have sinned at least once in your life.  Inasmuch as all fell because of the actions of one man Adam, anyone can be redeemed because of the actions of One Godman:  Jesus.  Rom 5:15.

Jesse Camacho on Sep 21st 2007

This blog is just getting started.  It’s impetus came from a talk at my church given by Bob Wilkin.  Click here to listen to his talk.  In it, he posits that to receive eternal life, one need only belief that Jesus has given them eternal life.  He explains that we should “keep it simple,” and tell people that if they believe in Jesus for everlasting life, they have it.  The problem is, if you dig into his writings, you learn that he means that’s all you need to tell someone.  He will qualify, and say that one must believe in a biblical sense.  But in his own words, starting at index 48:48, he explains that this really means believing that you have eternal life from Jesus.  He begins by answering a question from the audience, the question being:  “what is believing in the biblical sense?” He first turns to Jn 20:31, and says that it states that anyone who believes “that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God” has everlasting life.  Next, he asks “what does it mean to believe that Jesus is the Christ?”  At 50:26, he picks back up, and asks “so, what does it mean to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?” and goes on to explain that this phrase, that is the grouping of those words, only occurs 2 other times in Jn 6 and Jn 11:27.  Focusing on Jn 11:27, he camps out on Jesus asking “Do you believe this?”  Martha replies “you are the Christ, the Son of God, the One who is to come into the world.”   He says that Jesus didn’t ask her that.  At 51:43, he puts a bow around his answer:  “what it is, is He guarantees that the one who believes in Him will never die.”  Thus, the object of one’s faith is a promise, not the person nor work of Jesus.  He sums this up again at 56:09:  “you see in the Biblical sense, you have to believe that simply by faith in Him, you’ll never die.”

At 55:40, a woman asks how to witness to her Jehovah’s Witnesses son.  He refers he to the stmt above, and ultimately says “you need to get into all that [erroneous JW doctrines], just talk about what Jesus promised, and say that I’d love for you to know this.  I don’t what you to go to your grave hoping you have eternal life, go to your grave knowing it.”

The overarching problem with Wilkin’s teachings is that he suggests witnessing without providing context.  If a person is thinking of a different Jesus, that does not seem to matter to Wilkin.  Merely believing a promise that he whom they are thinking of can, or at one time, gave them eternal life.  If they trust in that promise, then they have it.  That is, if they believe that they have received eternal life from Jesus, then they in fact do have such eternal life.  This is dangerous, and can lead to a great many people having a false sense of security.  Instead of people going to their grave supposedly knowing that they have eternal life, they may find that all they had was a belief in a subjectively misunderstood promise.

This point can be hard to understand.  But to put things into perspective, read an article by his mentor, Zane Hodges, that is posted on Bob Wilkin’s organization’s website.  In “How to Lead People to Christ,” Hodges aptly drives home my point that no context of “he who believes in [Jesus] has everlasting life” is all that a person needs to hear and do in order to receive eternal life in heave.  Here is the relevant portion of that article:

Try to imagine an unsaved person marooned on a tiny, uninhabited island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. He has never heard about Christianity in his life. One day a wave washes a fragment of paper up onto the beach. It is wet but still partly readable.

On that paper are the words of John 6:43-47. But the only readable portions are: “Jesus therefore answered and said to them” (v 43) and “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life” (v 47).

Now suppose that our unsaved man somehow becomes convinced that this person called Jesus can guarantee his eternal future, since He promises everlasting life. In other words, he believes Jesus’ words in John 6:47. Is he saved?

(emphasis added).  He goes on to say “That’s why the man on the deserted island can get saved with only the barest minimum of information. When he believes John 6:47 he is believing in Jesus as the Christ.”  Is Hodges exaggerating or using hyperbole?  No, he is not.  To the contrary, this is the very point of his paper.  The example illustrates his position, shared with Bob Wilkin agree.  Note, the person has never heard about Christianity in his life.  And all he beleives is that Jesus can guarentees his eternal future, not even that He does, just that He can.  Note how he refers to believing that Jesus can guarentee one’s eternal future as being “believing in Jesus as the Christ.”  Good-sounding terms, contorted meanings.

Be mindful.  When you witness to someone, make sure the listener understands who the Jesus that you are talking about is.  He’s not a god, but God; not only a good moral teacher; not merely a wise man; not the Spirit brother of Lucifer; but the One and only Lord, fully God, who came to dwell among His creation as a Man who lived a sinless life in a real place during a real time.  We can never become deity, like Jesus.  If the person really has never heard about Christianity, then do what Paul did on Mars Hill:  back the truck all the way up to telling them about creation and take them through the resurrection.  Because the words of a Man who has been raised from the dead are worth listening to.