Pursuit of Truth

Free Grace Alliance sponsors a panel to discuss the “Crossless” Gospel

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

111 Comments » Crossless, GES, Jeremy Myers, indefenseofthegospel

111 Responses to “Free Grace Alliance sponsors a panel to discuss the “Crossless” Gospel”

jmyers on 23 Oct 2007 at 3:59 pm #

Hello,

I stumbled across your blog today and saw that for the most part, it is concerned with trying to understand the theology of Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society. Since I work there, and am the subject of this post, I hope you don’t mind if I comment briefly here.

I am curious if anyone who reads or comments on this blog was present at the panel discussion in question, and if so, what their take was.

Here is a summary of what I said at the panel discussion. In that post is another link for some of the questions I hoped would be answered for me personally at the panel discussion to help me understand the position of Tom and others. Regretably, these questions were not answered because they were never asked.

I think if someone is going to hold that one must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus in order to receive eternal life, they must have questions to these sorts of questions, and also be able to explain how Peter, Thomas, and the other apostles could be born again without believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

I am open to changing my mind on my view, but so far, I can’t make the position of Tom Stegall fit what I read and see in Scripture or fit with the rest of theology. Maybe some answers to the questions I posted on my blog and an explanation of how people were justified prior to death and resurrection of Jesus would help me.

Thanks!

PS, I did not specifically state in the forum that belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus is not required for salvation, nor was I there to defend that view. To my knowledge, I have never stated that specific proposition anywhere.

Jeremy Myers
http://www.tillhecomes.org/blog
Rachel on 24 Oct 2007 at 9:36 am #

Hi Jeremy,

Thanks for taking the time to comment, you are more than welcome to comment here. Out of curiosity, what led you to our blog?

Regarding the panel discussion, I was not there, and no one I know was there either. I would guess that very few, if any, of the people who read this blog were there.

Thanks also for the link to your summary of the panel, as well as your questions. I may provide my answers to your questions at a later time.

You said:

“I did not specifically state in the forum that belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus is not required for salvation, nor was I there to defend that view.”

I am confused by this statement. The question was, “Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection necessary for a person to be saved?” I realize this was a panel, not a debate, so it wasn’t like it was x and y vs. b and c. Yet, presumably the leaders provided people from both sides of the question. We know that Tom Stegall and Ken Wilson would answer “yes” to that question, and it sounds like Tim Nichols would answer “no”, so it only makes sense that they had you on the panel as the other “no” to round out the group.

But beyond that, you said that you can’t make the position of Tom Stegall (IRT that question) fit with the Bible. Tom’s position is well-known, i.e. that explicit belief in Jesus’ death and res IS necessary for salvation. If you say that that position doesn’t fit with the Bible, then what else are you saying except that explicit belief in Jesus’ death and res is NOT necessary for salvation? At a minimum, saying that Tom’s position doesn’t fit with the Bible indicates that you are not sure whether such explicit belief is necessary.

You also stated that you have never specifically said that explicit belief in Jesus’ death and res is not necessary for salvation. Perhaps not. However, Bob Wilkin has. So I will ask you then: Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection required for a lost person to be saved/receive eternal life?

Rachel
lmartuneac on 28 Oct 2007 at 4:07 pm #

Rachel:

Jeremy’s PS is an attempt to redirect away from the obvious implications of GES “Crossless Gospel” theology. They consider anything other than belief in a promise of eternal life “excess baggage” and an addition to the “Crossless Gospel” advocate’s idea of saving faith.

Jeremy is trying to position himself as if there is some middle ground on the question. Translation he does not want to give a clear, unambiguous answer. That has been the pattern of Wilkin and Myers for months now. Redirect, do not answer, answer with a question, delete comments and questions, and take down their articles and threads. Same thing happened with Wilkin at the GES conference in Washington State last month. He was asked about the Deity issue and refused to give a clear-cut answer.

This disturbing teaching from Hodges, Wilkin and the GES has gotten out and they are in a kind of shell shock over its revelation.

It is my understanding Myers was there and specifically invited to sit on the panel for the purpose of representing the NO belief in the death and resurrection side. His suggesting he was there as some sort of neutral voice is highly disingenuous.

Stegall’s irrefutable defense of the death and resurrection position from the Bible silenced Myers and Nichols. They had no answer and their questions could not be asked because Stegall had already disarmed them from the Scriptures.

He could not defend his position, so his escape mechanism is to say that he was not there for that in the first place. Bottom-line he does not believe it is necessary to believe in the death and resurrection or the Deity of Christ for salvation. You have already asked for clarification and as you can see he will not answer. He is not going to answer, that is the pattern as I noted above.

I am hopeful you church can fully recover from the strange and unbiblical teachings Wilkin brought into your assembly. The teaching of the “Crossless Gospel” is the source of division and offences (Rom. 16:17-18 ) in the Free Grace movement.

LM
lmartuneac on 28 Oct 2007 at 4:08 pm #

For your guests, I am at

http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Jesse Camacho on 28 Oct 2007 at 4:46 pm #

Thank you for your comments Jeremy, and for yours Lou (your URL is on our blogroll on the home page).
lmartuneac on 28 Oct 2007 at 11:01 pm #

Jese:

Feel free to delete my post where I did the link to my blog. Sorry about that.

Lou
jmyers on 29 Oct 2007 at 12:15 pm #

Rachel,

Regarding the panel discussion, Tom Stegall was the only member of the panel who gave an unqualified “Yes” answer to the panel topic.

Ken Wilson, as best I could understand, argued that a person only has to believe that Jesus is the God-Man, the Christ, who takes away the sin of the world. He seemed to state that a lost person doesn’t have to know specifically how Jesus takes away sin. So this really is at odds with Tom Stegall’s view.

The basic view of Tim Nichols was that “The questions doesn’t matter because we always talk about the death and resurrection of Jesus anyway.”

Larry Moyer was a last minute addition to the panel, and he was somewhere between Tom Stegall and Tim Nichols. He said that he always talks about the death and resurrection, but that if someone believed in Jesus for eternal life before he had the chance to tell them about the death and resurrection, he thought they would probably go to heaven, but wasn’t sure.

So as you can see, the question was not answered by any of these three men by a “Yes” or a “No.” Asking for a “yes” or “no” answer to this question is like asking a man “Yes or no. Have you stopped beating your wife?”

The panel question was: “Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection necessary for eternal salvation?” In my e-mails to Dave Anderson, which I have copies of, I answered this question “Yes” because of passages like Heb 5:9 . But of course, in that passage, obedience is also required, and the salvation in view is sanctification, not justification.

Clarity of terminology is vitally important in this debate. The term “salvation” in Scripture rarely (if ever) refers solely and only to receiving eternal life. In fact, I personally can’t find one place where it refers solely and only to receiving eternal life. Not even Ephesisans 2:8-9, which in context, refers to being seated with Christ in the heavenlies, etc. So if someone were to ask me “Is belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus necessary for salvation?” my answer is either “Yes” or “What do you mean by ’salvation’ and is that the Biblical use of that term?”

What I really appreciate about your response to my comment is that you seemed to have clarified what you mean by the term by writing “saved/receive eternal life.” If you would allow me to remove the word “saved” then I can answer your question more directly. So, as reworded, you question is: “Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection required for a lost person to receive eternal life?”

The answer to that question is the answer to this question: “Did Peter and the other apostles believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus when they beleived in Him for eternal life?” They clearly did not as various passages in the Gospels reveal. So, right here, in Scripture, we have examples of people who did not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, but who did have eternal life because they believed in Jesus for it.

But if someone argues, “Yes, but that is before the historical events of the death and resurrection of Jesus!” then we now have another question: “Has the condition for receiving eternal life changed?” That is the real question behind this debate.

So far, I am undecided on this issue, and am still seeking answers. I have not yet seen an explanation on how Peter and the apostles could have eternal life without believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus, but how today we must believe it. Did the offer of eternal life change?

This is why I pointed people to my blog to answer some of the questions I have posted there. They are not trick questions trying to sidetrack the debate. If I am to be convinced that belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus are necessary today to receive eternal life, those are the questions I need answered. Right now, I cannot answer them, and I don’t see Tom, or Lou, or Dennis, trying to answer those questions from Scripture either. Until then, I am officially undecided.

Anyway, thanks for your blog. Good, friendly places are needed to discuss these things.

Jeremy Myers
Jim on 29 Oct 2007 at 5:08 pm #

Rachel/Jeremy,

I am posting here since I have been watching this for a while in the blogosphere and on websites. Today, I spoke to one the the FGA boardmembers today who is my mentor over the phone about his impressions, as well as the president of the FGA via email.

The concern of mine and theirs is the process we are going through is polarizing people. I’m sure that the enemy is laughing at all this since it is dividing the brethren. Acts 15 was a good example of what is needed to be debated was done in an irenic spirit. Kudo’s to Tom Stegall to engage in public debate. Sure we don’t have apostles, but as the president of the FGA pointed out to me there is still a lot of discussion, study, and time to be done before the FGA will be completely decided on this issue. If done lovingly and in an irenic spirit we can exibit Christlikeness to each other versus making one sided arguments without the examination of a third party. If we don’t do this it will be a blemish on the FG legacy.

It is funny to see accusations made by someone who is not in the FG camp against Jeremy on your blog, but Jeremy is willing to discuss this with an irenic spirit. Jeremy even admits that he is undecided on the issue. My hat is off to you brother for your reasoned post. I would disagree with those who would say that what Jeremy is proposing is a trick set of questions. Many of us would like them to be answered by the other side of the debate directly and produce the exegetical proof to support their argument.
lmartuneac on 29 Oct 2007 at 7:27 pm #

Dear Administrators & Guests of This Blog:

I do not have much time to address what the “Crossless Gospel” advocates are posting here. It does, however, need attention lest some be attracted to or drawn into the theology of the “Crossless Gospel.”

From what I have read at your blog and similar comments you shared at mine, you folks heard enough from Bob Wilkin at your church to realize this teaching is antithetical to Scripture. The “Crossless” theology that originated with Zane Hodges is being forwarded not only by Wilkin, Myers, da Rosa, but also (who I assume just posted is) Jim Johnson from Rocky Mt. Bible College is antithetical to Scripture.

What Does the Bible Say?

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them,” (Rom. 16:17 ).

What has been irrefutably shown from the numerous articles (primarily by Greg Schliesmann) at my blog, and especially in the continuing series by Tom Stegall at the Grace Family Journal http://www.duluthbible.org/246451.ihtml is that “Crossless Gospel” theology is “contrary doctrine” and the “cause (of) divisions and offenses” in the FG community.

In referring to the terms beseech, mark, and avoid in verse 17, an acquaintance of mine said, which I cited in my book on Lordship Salvation, that is very appropriate for this doctrinal controversy,

“If you take those terms and you ponder them for just a moment, what becomes apparent is this: That our response in the first place is mandated. We have no subjective decision to make. The decision has already been made and the mandate is objective; it is in print! It has been in print for centuries! I exhort you, ‘mark’ them and ‘avoid’ them. The response that we are given is a mandated response. We are obligated to obey what is here.”

There is no middle ground, no ground to give when the Gospel, the Cross, the Resurrection of Christ and His Deity are under assault as it plainly is by “Crossless” theology and its advocates.

Finally, remember this: It is not the presentation of these truths that are the crux of debate as the “Crossless” men would have people believe. The debate is over what a lost man must know, understand or believe for salvation. It is there that these men have departed from the faith once delivered (Jude 3 ).

LM
lmartuneac on 29 Oct 2007 at 7:35 pm #

Jeremy wrote, “The basic view of Tim Nichols was that ‘The questions doesn’t matter because we always talk about the death and resurrection of Jesus anyway’.”

Two points…

1) This is an example of the facade and misdirect to the presentation issue, which as I noted is NOT the subject of debate.

2) Nichols’ literal answer to the panel question was, “I DON’T CARE!”

LM
Rachel on 29 Oct 2007 at 9:40 pm #

Hi Jeremy,

Thanks for responding. One question of mine that you didn’t answer was, what led you to our blog?

Regarding the panel members, in the link you gave us to your blog where you summarized each one’s response, you said that “Ken Wilson basically said ‘yes…’”, “Larry Moyer basically said ‘yes…’”, and that Tom Stegall said the same as Moyer only “more emphatically” (of course we know Tom would say yes). Now you say that these men (except for Tom) qualified their “yes” so that it really means “no”, or at the least “not sure”. And you say as well that you are not sure. Perhaps the FGA needs to review their process for selecting panel members. Why were people invited to be on a panel when they don’t have an answer to the question the panel asks? It seems strange to me that you would be asked to sit on a panel when you officially have no answer to the question being asked. Maybe the FGA misunderstood your view?

Either way, I’ll assume for the moment that your summaries are correct, and I’ll drop the idea that you were on the panel specifically to represent the “no” view. Lou obviously maintains that you were there for that, but while I trust Lou, I’m not hearing that first-hand, so I’ll drop insisting on it until I hear more.

The main point of even noting that you were on the panel with a certain view was simply to add to the evidence that Bob Wilkin and his organization (GES) truly do teach that belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection are not necessary for the lost person to believe in order to receive eternal life. I am happy to debate whether or not the lost person truly does need to believe that; however, at this point our church leadership still doesn’t even believe that that is the case. They still think that this is Wilkin’s “style” or his “technique”, that he merely “starts simple” but of course he thinks that the death and res are necessary components of saving faith. I am hopeful that the comments made here, even though I disagree with them (except for Lou), will help them understand the truth. THEN we can debate whether Wilkin, et al. are correct or not (understand though that our church has already stated views that are different from Wilkin’s, just not specifically IRT Wilkin).

Back to your post. I reject your idea that it’s somehow difficult to answer this question with a “yes” or “no”. It is not anywhere close to the question “have you stopped beating your wife”. I am honestly amazed that you would even think to compare the two. It is only difficult to answer if you insert strange and unusual definitions to the terms. I answer the question with an emphatic “YES”, no hesitation. Frankly, if “free grace” means not being sure about that question, then I am decidedly NOT free grace.

You said:

“The panel question was: ‘Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection necessary for eternal salvation?’ In my e-mails to Dave Anderson, which I have copies of, I answered this question ‘Yes’ because of passages like Heb 5:9 . But of course, in that passage, obedience is also required, and the salvation in view is sanctification, not justification.”

You are right that definitions are very important in this discussion. However, this comment of yours above is similar in tactic to Bob Wilkin. You’ll say “yes” to the question, but only if you get to insert your own definitions. The question asked about “eternal salvation”. I do not know of any Christian who would interpret that to mean merely “sanctification, not justification”. Clearly the question is asking about the required content of faith in order for a person to be justified. I haven’t done a word study on the biblical usage of “salvation”, but even if you are right that the Bible never uses the term “salvation” to mean receiving eternal life, that is the way it is used by us today. And it is most definitely the usage that is intended by the question.

Now, at the end of your post you stated that you are “officially undecided” about whether or not belief in Jesus’ death and res is necessary today to receive eternal life. To be honest, I’m having a hard time accepting that. First, in your first post here you said: “I am open to changing my mind on my view, but so far, I can’t make the position of Tom Stegall fit what I read and see in Scripture or fit with the rest of theology.” (emphasis added) Here you say that you do in fact have a “view”. If you claim to have a “view” on an issue, you cannot also be “undecided”. Certainly you could be open to changing your mind, but being “undecided” means that you don’t yet hold to any particular “view”. Which is it, do you have a view, or are you undecided? (and being undecided isn’t a view)

Second, and more poignant, let me quote you again. You said:

“So, as reworded, you [sic] question is: ‘Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection required for a lost person to receive eternal life?’

The answer to that question is the answer to this question: ‘Did Peter and the other apostles believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus when they beleived [sic] in Him for eternal life? They clearly did not as various passages in the Gospels reveal.”

So, here you are saying that your answer to question 1 is the same as your answer to question 2. Your answer to question 2 is clearly NO. Therefore your answer to question 1 is also NO by your own words. For you to later state that you are “undecided” seems rather disingenuous.

We know for a fact that Bob Wilkin would answer the panel question with a “no”. I think it’s pretty clear that you would give the same answer. I do hope that you are sincere about being open to changing your mind, and I hope that one day you will.
Rachel on 29 Oct 2007 at 9:52 pm #

Hi Jim,

Thanks for commenting on our blog. What led you to our blog?

You said:

“It is funny to see accusations made by someone who is not in the FG camp against Jeremy on your blog…”

I assume you are referring to Lou here. Interesting that you think he is NOT in the “FG camp”. I find that odd, since I’m quite sure that Lou would consider himself solidly in the Free Grace camp. His book, In Defense of the Gospel, was written specifically to refute Lordship salvation. And anyway, what does that have to do with anything? Whether or not Jeremy is evading, dodging, etc. is not determined by whether someone is Free Grace or not.

Regarding the issue of “polarizing people”, I agree with Lou that this is something worth dividing over. That’s actually what I’m trying to do here. I want Wilkin and all those who agree with him on this issue to be marked out and distinctions clearly made. I want it made obvious that Bob Wilkin stands in one spot, and our church stands in a completely different, opposing spot. I am polarized from Bob Wilkin, and I believe our church is too. I want that made evident. Not in a mean spirit, but in a spirit of truth.
Rachel on 29 Oct 2007 at 10:00 pm #

To all:

Just so it is clear where our church stands, our pastor delivered a message yesterday (10/28) from the Book of Galatians. In the message, he defined “belief in Jesus” for justification thusly:

“You and I are made right with God [justified] when we believe what Jesus did for us. And it’s not just an intellectual assent, it’s not just a feel-good ‘I believe in Jesus’. I’ll tell you what church, there’s a lot of people who believe in Jesus, and they ain’t goin’ to heaven. ‘Oh I believe in Jesus, miracle worker, historical figure, great teacher’. ‘I believe in Him’. But do you really believe? And to believe in Jesus Christ is to believe what He did for you on the cross, that he died for your sins, to pay the penalty for our sins, that we could not pay. That’s believing in Jesus. Believing in Jesus is trusting Him alone for your salvation. Many people say ‘I believe in Jesus’ but they’re trusting [baptism, sacraments, denomination] … It’s none of that, it’s only in Jesus. Believing in Jesus is admitting that you are a sinner, and that you stand in need of a Savior. And there’s no way that you can earn or gain God’s approval on your own. It’s all by God and his grace.”

Our pastor did not include Jesus’ resurrection in this statement, but I feel certain he would agree to its inclusion. Even so, he clearly states that “belief in Jesus” includes an understanding of your own sin, your inability to pay for your sins, that Jesus died for your sins, that you have to trust Jesus, and that you must be trusting Him alone (i.e. not works). Note also that he said nothing about Jesus being the guarantor of eternal life. Of course Jesus is that, but the “belief in Jesus” that justifies is more than that.
Jesse Camacho on 29 Oct 2007 at 11:02 pm #

Hi Jim,

I appreciate your comments. They serve to remind all those claiming to be Christians to act Christlike in all respects and at all times, including during these discussions. But to be sure, one of the main points of this blog is to defend the Gospel, and to help prevent it from being distorted. While I agree with that, I note that you comment:

The concern of mine and theirs is the process we are going through is polarizing people.

If by “process,” you are referring to searching Scripture to determine an answer, reaching different conclusions, and thereby causing people to become more confident in their beliefs, albeit sometimes different beliefs, then there seems to be little ground for concern. And if you are referring to the forum or manner, then surely this blog seems to offer much. It offers a high degree of accountability, wherein anyone anywhere can see what is written, that it might be tested. So far, no one is using fake names or even an alias. Each person is fully accountable for the accuracy of their writings, and that will always be the case for the Contributors. We are exchanging letters. The authorized contributors to this blog strive to comment on teachings rather than people.

I trust that your point is that we should comment with right motives, and in a God honoring way. If so, great. But to some, your comment might actually tend to squelch debate. That would not be good. Surely Paul used letters to correct teachings, rebuke others, record rebuking of others, and more. We are not disputing doubtful things, a thing counseled against in Rom 14 . We are discussing the Gospel itself.

In the same setting that Paul admonished Timothy to avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife and to not quarrel, (II Tim 2 ), he went on in say “[c]onvince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.” II Tim 4:2 . We hope to honor God in this way, to convince people that it is not true that if they merely think that they have eternal life, then they do. Thus, I am not so much concerned about what the enemy is thinking as I am with what the Master is thinking. I may be wrong. But so far, Scripture seems to indicate otherwise. And again, I’m publishing all of my thoughts so that they can be tested.

Jesse
lmartuneac on 30 Oct 2007 at 8:39 am #

Jesse/Rachel:

The “Crossless” theology advocates have repeatedly reminded us that they are personally persuaded of the truths of the Gospel. The crux of the debate, however, which they are determined to avoid discussing in unvarnished terms, is what the lost man must believe for salvation.

In my debates with the LS men they did not want to discuss what they believe are the requirements for salvation. They constantly drifted to the results of salvation. The advocates of “Crossless” theology are doing the exact same thing.

They want to keep pounding away with, “we believe the same things you do,” but they do not want to state in unvarnished terms that they do not believe a lost man must believe these to truths to be born again, saved, receive the gift of eternal life and justified.

The question for these men is not whether they personally believe in Christ’s work as the grounds for salvation. The question is whether the “Crossless” gopsel advocates like Jeremy and Jim believe the lost man must believe in Christ’s finished work for salvation.

It is that question they do not want to answer without first twisting and redefining the Scriptures, like we saw Jeremy demonstrate above. The answer, has however, been made clear from their previous writing.

Their position, which originated with Zane Hodges, is that it is not necessary for the lost person to know, understand or believe in the Deity, or the finished work of Christ as a condition for salvation.

LM
greg on 30 Oct 2007 at 8:59 am #

Jesse,

I was happy to see your pastor described the validity of faith by its object/content. At the beginning of the paragraph, I was a little bit worried. I do not believe there is a legitimate distinction between “intellectual assent” or “belief”, so long as a person “intellectually assents” to the truths of the true gospel for the purpose of being reconciled to God. However, I was encouraged when he went on to explain that the reason false professors are not saved is because they put their faith in the wrong object. Jesus Christ and His finished work must be the object of faith, not our own works.

I also agree with you that a “yes” / “no” answer is certainly appropriate to basic questions about salvation, such as “what must the lost believe to be saved?” If a person could not answer “yes” or “no”, and he himself is unsure what the lost must believe, how could he himself be sure he is saved?

– Greg
jmyers on 30 Oct 2007 at 10:14 am #

Rachel,

I don’t remember how I found your blog. Sorry.

I have a lot I could say about your response to my comment, but it all boils down to this:

Regarding Peter and the apostles, are you really saying that they did in fact believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus when they believed in Jesus for eternal life?
lmartuneac on 30 Oct 2007 at 10:36 am #

Rachel:

Jeremy demonstrates the “Refined” MO of the “Crossless” advocates. Answer a question with a question. They have recoiled after having the many errors unraveled and exposed, plus the false paradigms and assumptions their “Crossless” theology is built upon have been shown. Greg did this work.

They are determined to redefine the debate in their own terms. They are doing all they can to avoid the disturbing implactions the their “Crossless theology.

LM

PS: I posted a new article at my blog. It was promoted by what I read here. Thanks!
lmartuneac on 30 Oct 2007 at 1:25 pm #

Greg:

You wrote, “…a “yes” / “no” answer is certainly appropriate to basic questions about salvation, such as “what must the lost believe to be saved?” If a person could not answer “yes” or “no”, and he himself is unsure what the lost must believe, how could he himself be sure he is saved?”

Yes, and how is he going to evangelize the lost when he appears to be unsure of what the lost must believe. This is odd!

Jim wrote, “Jeremy even admits that he is undecided on the issue.”

If Jeremy is actually unsure of where he stands on these issues why is he calling for people to discuss and answer his series of questions.

I think the best thing he coud do is return to his study until he knows exacty what it is he believes.

LM
Rachel on 30 Oct 2007 at 2:44 pm #

Jeremy,

Before I answer your question, will you acknowledge that you have answered my question (”Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection required for a lost person to be saved/receive eternal life?”) with a “no” as I pointed out clearly above?
jmyers on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:06 pm #

Rachel,

As I indicated, since Peter and the apostles did not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus when they believed in Him for eternal life, then we clearly have a Biblical example of people who did not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus but still had eternal life. So, at least prior to Pentecost, the answer to your question is “No,” because that is what the Bible clearly reveals. You are right that that is the clear logic of my answer.

However, you seemed to be shocked that I would say this, and so the only conclusion I could draw was that you believed that Peter and the apostles did in fact believe in the death and resurrection when they believed in Jesus for eternal life. If you could clarify on that, it would be great.

I am, as I indicated above, undecided about the same question in this dispensation of the church age. That is why my answer can be both “No” and “Undecided” regarding the same question and not be disingenous as you charged. Of course, if you believe that people must always believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus in order to receive eternal life, you will have a hard time proving that from Scripture for anyone who lived and died prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The only way I can see it is that you must answer both “No” and “Yes” to your “Yes or No” question. Since Scripture teaches that people did have eternal life before believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus, but you say that (at least now, in this age) they must beleive in the death and resurrection of Jesus, you yourself cannot answer your simple “Yes or No” question with a simple “Yes” or “No.”

Is that disingenous or evading the question? Not at all. That’s theology. For those who know theology, there are few questions that can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.”
lmartuneac on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:25 pm #

Jeremy:

In light of Romans 10:9-10 and inthis dispensation must a lost man believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to be born again, justified, receive the gift of eternal life?

LM
lmartuneac on 30 Oct 2007 at 4:42 pm #

Jeremy:

If you are unclear on what a lost man must know, understand or believe; exactly what are you telling lost men today?

You are on a hospital visit tonight because a member of your church asked you to witness to his/her lost loved one. That lost loved one is conscience and alert, but only moments away from going out into eternity. What is your message?

What must he believe that will guarantee for him that he has been born and will shortly be with the Lord in Heaven?

LM
lmartuneac on 30 Oct 2007 at 8:57 pm #

Have to edit that last question:

Jeremy:

What must he believe that will guarantee for him that he has been born again and will shortly be with the Lord in Heaven?

LM
jonperreault on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:38 pm #

Hi Jesse and Rachel,

I have enjoyed reading your blog! I am a first time visitor coming from Lou’s blog. I’m traditional Free Grace as well and look forward to reading your posts!

Jonathan
jonperreault on 30 Oct 2007 at 9:46 pm #

Jeremy,

I think I understand where you are coming from. (This is not to say I agree with you but only that I understand what you are saying.) It seems you have a hard time believing that the content of faith has changed since the time of the disciples. I talked about this on Antonio’s blog earlier today. I said that I have spent quite possibly hundreds of hours studying John’s Gospel and am convinced that Jesus Himself modified the content of belief as a natural result of His crucifixion and resurrection. I have put together a nearly 20 page thesis of my conclusions. I have an opportunity (Eph. 5:16 ) to post my findings on Antonio’s blog in keeping with Paul’s preaching in the Areopogus to those in oppostion and the same apostle’s clear command in 2 Timothy 2:24-26 .
lmartuneac on 31 Oct 2007 at 5:58 am #

Jeremy:

This question may be missed by you since it is up thread. You should have an opportunity to address this real-life, non-hypothetical situation.

1) If you are unclear on what a lost man must know, understand or believe; exactly what are you telling lost men today?

2) You are on a hospital visit because a member of your church asked you to witness to his/her unsaved loved one. That lost loved one is conscience and alert, but only moments away from going out into eternity. What is your message?

What must he believe that will guarantee for him that he has been born again and will shortly be with the Lord in Heaven?

LM
Rachel on 31 Oct 2007 at 12:42 pm #

Jeremy,

The question reads: “Is belief… required…?” Clearly this is present tense, right now, today. The current debate in these circles is not over whether or not the apostles believed in the death and res of Jesus before those events happened. No one is claiming that, therefore no one is asking about that. Answering about whether or not belief in the death and res was required in the OT is unnecessary, and can make it appear like you are evading the question.

Also, on your blog, you said (regarding the FGA panel): “I am presenting the view that while the death and resurrection of Jesus was necessary for justification to be possible, belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus is not what grants a person eternal life.” The thing is, no one in our circles is contending that simple belief in the facts of Jesus’ death and res gives people eternal life. So why are you presenting that view to anyone? No one here is debating that. Neither is that an answer to the question the panel was posing. The question was, “is belief in Jesus’ death and res necessary” (i.e. required content of saving faith), NOT “is belief in Jesus’ death and res sufficient“.

In addtion, on your blog again, you said that one of your reasons for agreeing to sit on the panel was so that people could “hear my position from me rather than from those out there who don’t understand my position but continue to write pejorative and negative things about me.” So again here, you claim to have a specific “position” on the question and that you planned to share it at the panel. Yet now you say you are undecided. How is that a “position”, and how would that be a meaningful contribution to the panel?

Finally, I still find your claim of being “undecided” a bit suspect. I recently discovered that the FGA has a forum section. Apparently it isn’t used much (anymore), but a couple years ago it had some activity, and you made a post there. Here’s what you said:

“Take my two year old daughter. She is not a good example for argumentation purposes, but hey – I’m a proud daddy. She doesn’t know much about Jesus. We haven’t yet been able to figure out how to explain to her that Jesus is God. We think she knows she does some bad things from time to time, but how can we explain to her that these things require a death penalty? We can’t. She doesn’t understand resurrection or justification.

But she does know and believe that Jesus exists, and that people who believe in Him get to go to heaven. She is persuaded of this in part because her parents convinced her. Is that “saving faith”? I think so. We will give her more details as she gets older so that she can grow in the faith. (emphasis added)

Obviously your daughter is in the church age. And here you have said that she was saved by believing ONLY that Jesus exists and that you can go to heaven if you believe in him. Obviously (as you acknowledged) she had NO understanding of her sin, the substitutionary atonement, or the resurrection (nor would we expect her to at that age). Yet you still decided she was saved.

Perhaps you’ve changed your mind since then and aren’t quite so sure. But otherwise, it would seem evident that, rather than being undecided, you do actually think that people in this dispensation can and do have saving faith without any knowledge of their sin, the cross, or the resurrection.
Rachel on 31 Oct 2007 at 2:19 pm #

Greg, thanks for your comments. However, I do see how someone could have assurance of their own salvation even if they are unsure of what the lost must believe. If someone is sure that, whatever the lost must believe, it is a subset of his/her own beliefs, then that person could be assured of their own salvation and at the same time be unsure of what exactly the lost must believe to be saved.
Rachel on 31 Oct 2007 at 2:20 pm #

Jonathan,

Thanks for posting here. I would be interested in your thesis. Please post a link here whenever it is ready.
FreeGracer on 31 Oct 2007 at 5:59 pm #

Hi Rachel and Jesse,

My name is Antonio da Rosa. I have been writing treatises (sp?) taking a favorable position on the one you object to. I have dubbed it Refined Free Grace theology and refer to the position you espouse as Traditional Free Grace theology.

I have a Free Grace blog that I have been writing on for about 2 years now. Recently, I have been devoting some time to expounding my thoughts on Refined Free Grace theology. I would so love your interaction on these articles that I have spent substantial time on.

It is truly disconcerting that Lou Martuneac’s comments (whether it is his intention or not) serve to stifle meaningful dialogue. We all share a rich theological heritage and ought to at least encourage an open discussion of these matters in the bonds of love in Christ. There is much we all actually agree on. It is only one point that we disagree:

What does it mean to “believe in” Jesus in a soteriological sense?

Otherwise, we all agree on the essential, orthodox, and fundamental doctrines. I have no problem with men and women taking sides, and separating if need be. But I believe it will not be honoring to God if we do so prematurely. Let us let a meaningful process and dialogue take place, and seek to make it an environment free of the harsh rhetoric and condemning language that has poisoned some against a Christ-honoring debate.

I am willing to dialogue, debate, and answer questions, and offer a few myself. If we can all play fair, and try to esteem each other better than ourselves, and move in a manner of humility, I believe we can make great strides in understanding.

Again. It would be great for you, Rachel and Jesse, to interact with the two above named posts. I, too, would be willing to interact with any material that you post here. Let us all proceed in our integrity.

Desiring the manifold blessings of God on you all,

Antonio da Rosa
jonperreault on 31 Oct 2007 at 6:21 pm #

Hey Antonio,

I appreciated your above comment. You said alot we can all agree with and learn from, myself especially! I too would like to discuss your two posts you linked above (Are We Robbed of John 3:16 ? and ‘Whoever [simply] believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God’ (1 John 5:1 ). Do you believe this?). But for some reason it seems you have forgotten about my comments, overlooked them, or what have you. For example, in the latter link above, I have three of the last four comments and Greg has one as well that are all unanswered, even unresponded to! And in the previous link above, I also have a comment to you that is unresponded to. (And all this is not even mentioning the email I sent you!) No real hurry I guess, I just wanted to affirm that I would like to continue to discuss these matters in the environment you encouraged!
lmartuneac on 31 Oct 2007 at 6:59 pm #

Antonio:

A few days ago you wrote, “I admitted that in the past I had been caught up in the heat of the moment, and allowed the works of the flesh to manifest themselves in my public remarks…I had already done business with God and repented of such.”

Right out of the chute with your first post you write, “It is truly disconcerting that Lou Martuneac’s comments (whether it is his intention or not) serve to stifle meaningful dialogue.”

Raising suspicion over what my motives may be. Matthew 7:1-2 has something to say about that. So much for the facade of repentance, but let’s move on.

Antonio, you stated, “I (Antonio) am willing to dialogue, debate, and answer questions, and offer a few myself.”

OK, let’s try that. This is the question from this blog’s administrator and it is under discussion, “Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection required for a lost person to be saved/receive eternal life??”

Would you please explain in your own words whether or not a lost man can be saved apart from believing in the finished work of Christ?

Once you answer that question from this blog’s administrator, then in fairness you should have the opportunity to ask him/her your question. That would be fair and reasonable since you are a guest; wouldn’t it?

LM
lmartuneac on 31 Oct 2007 at 7:29 pm #

Antonio:

Just one non-doctrinal question.

What would your reaction be if I were to go to your blog right now, post a comment and, within that comment insert four links to my blog? And also extend an invitation to you and your guests to join me at my blog for a discussion over there?

I trust you won’t mind if I do that this evening. Is that OK?

LM
Rachel on 31 Oct 2007 at 8:45 pm #

Hello Antonio,

Thanks for stopping by our blog. If you scroll through the blog entries, you will see an article titled, “Misconception or disagreement?” authored by my husband. In it he posts an email he wrote to you as a response to an email you had sent. We had also sent you another email some time after that (although we haven’t heard back from you on either one). So, all this really to say that we are already familiar with you and your blog to some extent.

I have been reading your blog already, and may decide to comment at some point. Thanks for the invitation.

Also, this blog was originally intended to establish the fact that Bob Wilkin believes that no knowledge of our sin, the cross, or the resurrection is necessary for the lost person to believe for eternal salvation. It would appear that that has been well-established, at least here. However, there are those we are close to who have yet to understand that. So a lot of our energy right now is being spent on convincing them of that fact. We will engage in dialogue about why we believe he is wrong on that point when we are able.

Rachel
jonperreault on 31 Oct 2007 at 9:18 pm #

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

Answer: Yes, according to John 20:30-31 .
Jim on 31 Oct 2007 at 10:53 pm #

Rachel/Jesse,

Rachel I would like to respond to you first. Thank you for responding kindly to my post. If I remember right, I clicked a link off of another blog, Jeremy’s discussion of the FGA conference. Any particular reason you ask?

And yes, I am referring to Lou and others who label us as “crossless” gospel advocates. If you went to my site:

http://www.freegracegospel.org/

and blog (there is a link there); you would see that I’m not a member of GES, but the FGA. You would also see what I believe. I’m sure that Bob and Zane (who I have spoken to personally) would not agree with all of my beliefs. That’s fine with me as I am on a journey of sanctification and do not know it all. Some times I wish the apostles were still here so we could take this to them for a decision. Unfortunately, there is only the Holy Spirit and the rules of hermeneutics and exegesis to help us in rightly dividing the word.

Your question about “And anyway, what does that have to do with anything?” Forgive me I thought this blog open to discuss both views. If it is to be one sided, then I erred by posting here and will refrain from doing so in the future. In a public exchange I prefer not to demean or belittle anyone. Primarily because when I am discussing the gospel, and any disagreement theologically, I prefer not to be someone who creates division within the church, unless you consider me a false teacher and/or an unbeliever. If so you can contact me via my email and I will provide the needed information to contact the president of the bible college and seminary where I teach, my home church where I lead a small group, and two other churches here in the Denver area where I preach since both have lost their pastor.

As to your position, I’m sorry that you feel the need to polarize people, I don’t. I prefer to discuss this and if we agree to disagree then we who claim to be Christians should do it in a way that honors Christ. Allow me a question as I continue to answer your post, did you come to your convictions by personal study of the bible or are you just supporting the leadership of your church?

As to the statement about the Spirit of truth, it seems that the Apostles told us to test the spirits and that all are not from God; also to test all things and hold fast to that which is good. Instead of trying to understand anything about me or my position, it is almost as if you have pre-judged me. The same thing happened when those of the Lordship camp labeled me a freegracer. I prefer to not use pejorative language to describe others. I think there are so many people who have labeled me a heretic I’m almost more comfortable with that instead of crossless gospel advocate. Why, it doesn’t describe me and as a term coined by those who claim to be free grace against a brother in Christ is dishonoring to the command to love each other. Even when I debated Lordship proponents, I made it a point to avoid rancor; and did it with respect and an irenic spirit even when they did not.

As to what Lou thinks about his position, that is for him to speak for. The argument over the gospel has been going on since the first century, I became aware of it during the time when there was no internet and these discussions were in the church governed by elders. I have witnessed what division caused by those who would claim to have a corner on the truth. As with Jeremy, I don’t see in the scriptures what the people who claim of us of heresy. I also, after beginning a study of the Old Testament I am curious about the theme of sacrifice up to the time of the coming of the Messiah, there is another theme which was a promise. As I said before, there is more to understand. My first day in seminary taught me how much I did not know. As of today, the more I learn the less I know and am humbled by what the Holy Spirit shows me. Please understand, when presented with exegetical evidence I will be convinced of my “error” and change my mind. To date no one, either Tom Stegall (who I respect for at least coming to the table in the spirit of Acts 15 to have a hearing before a third party) or others who I have lost any respect for because they, instead of presenting the argument, instead present some thought to do with the motives of those who are in the “refined” free grace camp. To date none have presented any convincing proof.

Jesse,

Thank you as well for your kind post, and the process I am referring to is not dealing with this blog, it is the division between believers beyond it. Unless again you consider me a false teacher and/unbeliever I’m trying to understand and then be understood. In quoting Paul you and I share a common opinion about his meaning, but are you saying that I am in error? I have hardly said anything to warrant such evaluation. This is a concern of mine, people seem to be spring loaded to resort to division and ridicule. That is why Dr. Bing and other men more learned and Christlike are greatly concerned about what is happening. If your convinced of your position and no amount of contrary evidence would persuade you then it is useless to continue trying to bring evidence since it is a matter of the will versus actual hermeneutics and exegetical evidence. Fortunately a local church can be governed by by its leadership. Those who would not stop dividing the local body had to be removed through church discipline. It pains me to say it but I have had to deal with that as an elder, and I would rather lose a limb than see division between those in His royal household. The internet allows no such governance. Hence my desire to be accountable to my mentor/seminary president and my church. I will always allow someone to contact them since it is important for me to hold my teachings up to the scrutiny of those who can impose discipline.

In the appeal to the thoughts of the Lord Jesus, as a disciple we will both have to stand before His judgment seat to give account of our actions and words. I am completely comfortable with what my position is on the gospel as well as my words. In your evaluation of your position, which I respect, the same question comes to mind as with Rachel, did you come to it via individual bible study or via the teachings of a particular church or teacher?

The reason I ask these questions is that I hope we would not quote verses at each other or what a particular pastor or theologian says and engage in the meaning of the biblical evidence presented by each side and have enough respect to allow examination of the evidence and allow an honestly motivated response.

His forever,
lmartuneac on 31 Oct 2007 at 11:09 pm #

Folks:

I addressed my two previous posts to Antonio da Rosa in reply to his initial appearance here. That should in no way be interpreted as though I am re-establishing communication with him.

I may acknowledge and comment on what he writes here, but I will not interact with him directly.

For those who are unaware: On Sept. 3rd I was forced to permanently ban Antonio da Rosa from my blog. At the same time I notified him I would no longer interact with him at his blogs.

LM
lmartuneac on 31 Oct 2007 at 11:13 pm #

To All:

Antonio has claimed to be desirous of interacting fairly with guests of this blog. He wrote, “I am willing to dialogue, debate, and answer questions, and offer a few myself. If we can all play fair…”

Can this be taken seriously? I am going to post a recent exchange between Greg Schliesmann and Antonio da Rosa at one of Antonio’s blogs.

Greg posted this to Antonio:
“You (Antonio) noted that you are personally persuaded that Christ’s work has indeed paid your sin and His blood made provision for the guarantee of everlasting life. However, the question is not whether you personally see Christ’s work as the ground of salvation. It is whether you believe the lost must believe in ‘Christ’s finished work’ for salvation.”

Following is da Rosa’s reply:
“I have answered all I am going to answer, as I said. You are continuing to badger me against my wishes. If you are not a part of the FGA, why are you harassing me about my agreement with their doctrinal statement? It is incongruent. You have no vested interest in that I meet your standards of consistency in my affirmation of the FGA doctrinal statement. None whatsoever. This discussion is totally unfruitful. I will not respond to any more hounding about something you have absolutely nothing to do with. That is my last word. I politely ask you to refrain from any more interrogation on this subject. Thanks for your expected compliance.”

What is there in Greg’s question that deserves the kind of rebuke that da Rosa responded with? That Antonio has not deleted the exchange is itself remarkable. He typically deletes, or is unresponsive to questions as Jon P pointed out earlier in this thread.

The exchange with Greg illustrates Antonio’s consistent pattern of interaction with many of those who reject the theology of the “Crossless” gospel.

LM
lmartuneac on 31 Oct 2007 at 11:35 pm #

To All:

You will need to become accustomed to cries of “foul,” over the label, “Crossless gospel.

The position on the Gospel that originated with Zane Hodges is appropriately and accurately labeled a “Crossless” gospel.

Pastor Tom Stegall recently published Part 4 of his series The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel. Readers here can download it in PDF form from the Grace Family Journal.
http://www.duluthbible.org/246451.ihtml

This blog also links to the entire series by Brother Stegall.
http://blog.jessecamacho.com/free_grace/?p=17

See the Special Edition for Part 4. Beginning on p. 10 Pastor Stegall irrefutably proves that the teaching of Hodges, Wilkin, Myers, da Rosa, Jim Johnson and the GES is correctly labeled a “Crossless” gospel.

Here is a sample, “After reading all that Hodges has written previous to this statement, (appears above) one is baffled as to how the preaching of the cross can seriously be considered ‘essential.’”

LM
lmartuneac on 31 Oct 2007 at 11:37 pm #

Jeremy:

I would appreciate your attention to this two-part question.

If you are unclear on what a lost man must know, understand or believe; exactly what are you telling lost men today?

You are on a hospital visit tonight because a member of your church asked you to witness to his/her lost loved one. That lost loved one is conscience and alert, but only moments away from going out into eternity. What is your message?

What must he believe that will guarantee for him that he has been born again and will shortly be with the Lord in Heaven?

LM
FreeGracer on 31 Oct 2007 at 11:39 pm #

Rachel,

I did receive the one email. I can’t remember a second. In the email, I remember your husband being gracious, and I appreciate that. The response, though, as I remember, didn’t encourage me to continue an email correspondence, in that, correct me if I am wrong, the gist was that he completely understood the Refined position and did not currently feel he could be misrepresenting or misunderstanding it. In that light, I believe his testimony is that he had rejected my view after careful consideration. In my heart, I can’t see how anyone could reject the view I take when considering the strong evidence for it, and understanding the way it all correlates together. That said, I reckoned that I could spend my time better constructing articles that articulate my position for the public at large to consume.

With regards to Bob Wilkin’s position, I am confident that he would respond that the acknowledgment of one’s sins would be an universal psychological pre-requisite (in contrast with theological/soteriological condition) to one entrusting his eternal well-being to Christ. In other words, no one would trust Christ for eternal life apart from being convicted by the Holy Spirit.

JP,

I will look over the latter thread’s comments again. I believe I felt it straying off topic and going someplace that it would have just taken too many words to correct. Believe me. I have expended alot of time, energy, and words to this date, and I try to choose which battlefronts to emphasize my position (not that I feel less confident on other battlegrounds, but wish to make my greatest points with the fewest words). I will look over them again. Concerning your email, I will respond when I get a chance. Pertaining to your newest comment today, I have been out with my children at church for a carnival all night. I am tired and going to bed.

Lou,

you ask:

OK, let’s try that. This is the question from this blog’s administrator and it is under discussion, “Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection required for a lost person to be saved/receive eternal life??”

Speaking only for myself. I have two answers based upon the slightly ambiguous nature of the questions:

Pragmatically, I doubt there will be many if any people today coming to faith in Jesus for everlasting life without first explicitly believing Christ’s death and resurrection. In other words, “explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection” is virtually a universal pre-requisite to saving faith (in other words, to believing in Jesus). It is a near universal psychological necessity.

Theologically speaking, “explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection” is not soteriologically necessary for the reception of eternal life. There is only one condition of that: “believing in” Jesus.

Let me be very clear. No one “believes in” Jesus, soteriologicaly, in a vacuum of knowledge. They must be persuaded that Jesus Christ is able, qualified, authoratative, and willing to guarantee their eternal wellbeing. The cross-work of Christ is the centerpiece and crowning achievement of Christ substantiating His authority and qaulification to impart eternal life to all who simply “believe in” Him, in other words, entrust themselves eternally into His hands.

At a ballfield, the man at the gate only requires a ticket. From his standpoint, this is the only condition for entrance to the field of play. But from the standpoint of the sport fan, there may be several necessary conditions in addition to the ticket for him to finally end up in the stadium. For instance, he will need to appropriate transportation there.

Jesus has the words of everlasting life. His words are spirit and they are life. Whenever someone believes Him in His promise, those words create life. Jesus’ words are, “… whoever believes in Me shall not perish but have everlasting life.” This is the only theological requirement necessary to receive eternal life (this is the only condition placed upon man by God and in His perspective), and is likened to the man taking the tickets at the stadium. But from the man’s perspective, there may be a number of varying necessary requirements that must be fulfilled to get him to the point of entrusting his eternal destiny into the hands of Jesus. Virtually, universally, this takes the path of understanding the cross work of Christ — its meaning and purpose — and His resurrection, and this is likened to the man having to travel to the stadium.

Lou’s second question:

Would you please explain in your own words whether or not a lost man can be saved apart from believing in the finished work of Christ?

Yes. A lost man in this dispensation can receive eternal life apart from believing in the finished work of Christ. It is not theologically necessary to do so. God does not condition the reception of eternal life on assent to the work of Christ. God imparts eternal life to all who simply and certainly place their eternal well-being and destiny into the hands of Jesus Christ.

Yet your question is thoroughly hypothetical. It is virtually impossible for anyone to consider Jesus Christ authoratative and qualified to impart eternal life to the simple believer in Him who deny His cross-work. It is psychologically impossible. No one will trust Jesus for eternal life who denies the foundation and provision by which He can offer life to the believer.

I have answered your questions sincerely, honestly, and with my integrity. Now therefore answer mine:

But let me put it to you this way. You have raised a hypothetical, let me raise one of my own. Suppose a man begins reading the gospel of John and when he gets to John 11:25-26 , he entrusts his eternal destiny into the hands of Jesus Christ. The words and miracles of Christ that he has read up to this point in the narrative have persuaded Him that Jesus can be relied upon to secure and guarantee His eternal felicity and destiny. He believed in Jesus in the very same way that Nathaniel, Apostle John, Peter, Andrew (John 1:35-50 ) the disciples (2:11), Nicodemus (3:16); and the Samaritans (4:39-42) did when they received eternal life. Before getting much further in the narrative, this man has a heart attack and dies. Is this man with the Lord or is he in hades?

Lou, you finally write

What would your reaction be if I were to go to your blog right now, post a comment and, within that comment insert four links to my blog? And also extend an invitation to you and your guests to join me at my blog for a discussion over there?

I trust you won’t mind if I do that this evening. Is that OK?

Firstly, this is not your blog. If Rachel and Jesse have a problem with my links, I will gladly delete the comment and repost it without them. I will defer to their judgment.

Secondly, I remember many occasions where you have done the same on LS blogs.

Furthermore, you have been asked to refrain from posting on my blogs as I have been asked to do the same on yours. If it is your desire to come to some agreement on this unfortunate impasse, I am all ears. I feel confident that, providing there are inviolable rules set up on both of our parts, that some agreement could be made. I will leave that up to you. Yet for the life of me, I don’t know why you would want to. You are all up in arms and desiring to separate from those in my position, having relegated us to heresy and a false gospel. I would not go that far with the Traditional Free Grace. I only believe that they share a confusing and technically innaccurate invitation in their evangelistic endeavors that can present road-blocks to saving faith and subsequent assurance. Yet, I believe anyone, at the end of the day, who has certainly entrusted his/her wellbeing into the hands of Jesus Christ is saved, and I am confident that many people have come to saving faith through the efforts of traditional FG advocates.

I certainly have in the past have targeted you with harsh rhetoric, rather than stick to the points of biblical theology (and I have surely felt your sting). For this I have been ashamed. I apologize and seek your forgiveness. I pray that you accept my apology.

Nevertheless, as I read your desires for me to convert to your position, so as to leave my heresy, I desire that you leave your position, so as to leave your confusing, technically innaccurate, and potentially preventative evangelistic position that can create many problems and difficulties.

That being said, I must say good night.

My desire if for truth, patience, and well reasoned expositions of the biblical text.

May the manifold blessings of Christ richly provide for each one of your needs,

Antonio da Rosa
lmartuneac on 31 Oct 2007 at 11:48 pm #

Jeremy:

Let’s make it real.

At our church this evening it was announced that a former family (that moved south a few years ago) have a 6 year old boy with inoperable cancer of his brain stem. The doctors are unable to help him, but are also unable to explan why he is not in any pain.

This is real and a situation that none of us would ever want to go through, but this couple is. Thank God for His enabling grace.

Jeremy, if you are unclear on what a lost person must know, understand or believe; exactly what would you tell this 6 year old boy?

You are in his hospital room. The parents are looking to you to tell their son how he can be born again. What is your message to this boy?

What must he believe that will guarantee for him that he has been born again and will shortly be with the Lord in Heaven?

LM
Jesse Camacho on 01 Nov 2007 at 12:05 am #

Jim,

I think that you and I are on the same page inasmuch as we both agree that we ought carry out this debate in a way that is honoring to Jesus, while making substantive comments that we’ll be accountable for before the Judgment Seat. Whew, that puts things into perspective. Regarding where I’ve gotten my knowledge: it’s a medley – individual study for sure, but I have certainly listened to many people and read many different resources over time. To be sure, I have changed positions on various topics as well as meanings of verses. I’m just a lay person, but one who found that Church and Sunday School was not quenching my appetite. So a couple years ago, I did enroll part time at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. But I’m there to learn, not b/c I know. I didn’t go to Bible College or anything, and I can only squeeze in 6 hours a semester. I just want to be useable by the Master. I don’t usually speak up unless I think that there is something not being said that needs to be said. Over the last 3-4 months, I have really dug in to learning about salvation. I’m still learning, but am deeply troubled by many Wilkin and Hodges writings that I’ve read. We are really trying to misstate anyone. That’s why we are providing links to writings, especially when we paraphrase. I’m most concerned that some people might be led astray by these teachings, that they might think that they are saved when they are not. So that’s what has driven me to write.

Jesse
Jesse Camacho on 01 Nov 2007 at 12:16 am #

Lou,

A gentle demeanor reminder. Nothing huge. You have much to add. I value your contributions.
Jesse Camacho on 01 Nov 2007 at 12:25 am #

Antonio (and All),

I don’t mind people posting links to your blogs or writings or anything else that you think will help convey your point, or that you seek comment on, as long as it’s on topic. Of course links can be overused, wherein (right or wrongly, but pragmatically) one’s points are not received b/c the author’s thoughts are not coming through. So far, the comments here do not seem to be to this extreme.

Jesse
lmartuneac on 01 Nov 2007 at 12:45 am #

Jesse:

Thanks, I appreciate that reminder.

Lou
lmartuneac on 01 Nov 2007 at 9:51 am #

Jim:

You wrote, “Even when I debated Lordship proponents…”

I have been actively following and interacting in the Lordship debates and with its advocates since 1996, casually since 1989. I was not aware that you have debated any advocates of Lordship Salvation. Which of the Lordship advocates have you debated?

I am finalizing the revisions to my book on LS, and I always like to read new material from both sides of the debate. Maybe there is something you have touched on that I could cite in my book to bolster the biblical defense against Lordship theology.

Would you direct me to your debates with the LS proponents? Any web sites, blogs or theological journals where your debates and/or interaction with them appear would be great.

Please post those details here and I will follow it up.

Thanks,

LM
jmyers on 01 Nov 2007 at 10:04 am #

So we are now trying to decide what the definition of “is” is? Ha ha. That sounds famililar… but again, it’s all about the definition of words, isn’t it? From what I gather from the comments above, everybody agrees that belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus was not a requirement for beleivers prior to Pentecost. So in answer to the question “Is belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus always a requirement for the lost person to believe in order to receive eternal life?” it seems everybody is answering “No.”

There are too many questions and verses and comments directed at me here to attempt an answer to all of them, and I simply don’t have time. Think of me what you will, but I just can’t spend hours every day answering all these questions…

It seems people want to know what I tell people when I evangelize. I’m not sure why this question has come up since I have made it abundantly clear on my own blog, in my sermons, and in other writings. But I will summarize it here:

I tell people everything and anything necessary to get them to believe in Jesus for everlasting life. Sometimes, I need to clarify what the term “believe” means. I also have to explain who Jesus is (God and sinless man) and what He did on the cross and how His resurrection proved that His death was acceptable to God. I nearly always have to explain that eternal life means life that cannot be lost and goes on forever. I do not have a checklist of items that I must tell the person. I allow the natural flow of the conversation and the direction of the Holy Spirit upon my own mind and the convicting questions of the Spirit on the other person’s mind to lead the conversation.

When I say I am “undecided” about whether a person in this dispensation has to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus in order to receive eternal life, what I mean by that is that since in previous dispensations people did not have to beleive in the death and resurrection of Jesus, and I cannot find clear, Biblical proof that says we must believe this truth in this dispensation, I am awaiting some clear Biblical evidence from those who say it is a requirement. So far, I have not read any such defense of that position which properly deals with Biblical terminology. When I see someone make this attempt, I will weigh their arguments with Scripture and exegesis, and make a decision. Until then, I am undecided.

As far as I can tell, the people who hold to this position are holding to it based on tradition. I have heard and read lots of arguments from tradition. I have not yet read a clear, consistent, Biblical defense of the view yet. I am hoping there is one, but haven’t read it in any of the articles and other blogs mentioned on this site. I have some questions on my own blog that I need answered if I am going to hold this view, and until those questions are answered, I cannot hold it. Until then, I am undecided.
lmartuneac on 01 Nov 2007 at 11:11 am #

Jeremy:

Your wrote, “I also have to explain who Jesus is (God and sinless man) and what He did on the cross and how His resurrection proved that His death was acceptable to God.”

Some might view even that much as a “checklist.” Nevertheless…

Does the lost man have to believe any of what you noted there (Deity and His finished work) to be born again and receive the gift of eternal life?

LM
thestarks on 01 Nov 2007 at 11:49 am #

It seems people want to know what I tell people when I evangelize.

That isn’t what we want to know. What you tell people is, as you stated, already well documented. Since that info is already avail. It seems odd that you would spend your limited time repeating what’s already been said rather than directly answering a very simple question: “Does the lost man have to believe the deity of Christ, and his death and resurrection?”.

I’ve created a new post for that discussion.

-stephen
FreeGracer on 01 Nov 2007 at 11:53 am #

Hey Lou,

I answered your questions in my integrity and honesty. How is it you say that you will not interact with me directly when indeed you have already done so by personally addressing me with your comments and questions? Will you not answer my question to you? If not, pretend that Jeremy or someone else wrote the question.

To all,

If Lou is unwilling to answer my question, giving me the same consideration that I have shown him in fully answering his, will you go ahead and answer this question:

Suppose a man begins reading the gospel of John and when he gets to John 11:25-26 , he entrusts his eternal destiny into the hands of Jesus Christ. The words and miracles of Christ that he has read up to this point in the narrative have persuaded Him that Jesus can be relied upon to secure and guarantee His eternal felicity and destiny. He believed in Jesus in the very same way that Nathaniel, Apostle John, Peter, Andrew (John 1:35-50 ) the disciples (2:11), Nicodemus (3:16); and the Samaritans (4:39-42) did when they received eternal life. Before getting much further in the narrative, this man has a heart attack and dies.

Is this man with the Lord or is he in hades?

It is a simple question that will nevertheless cause you to search deep within your thought processes.

Looking forward to your honest answer,

Antonio
FreeGracer on 01 Nov 2007 at 11:57 am #

Stephen,

I realize that I am not Jeremy (he is much more handsome than I) but I have answered that question above, and ask that you please refer to it. Do you have any interaction on my verbose answer?

Furthermore, would you please answer my above question?

looking forward to your answer,

Antonio
lmartuneac on 01 Nov 2007 at 12:35 pm #

Steve:

You wrote, “That isn’t what we want to know. What you tell people is, as you stated, already well documented. Since that info is already avail. It seems odd that you would spend your limited time repeating what’s already been said rather than directly answering a very simple question: “Does the lost man have to believe the deity of Christ, and his death and resurrection?”

Jeremy and the “Crossless” advocate are well aware of what you are trying to get at. They have no inetention of going there. This has been a consistent pattern with them.

Over the months men from our side in the debate have made it clear that the crux of the controversy is not over what “Crossless advocates personally believe or might say to a lost person. It has been happily conceded that they (Jeremy) believe in the death and resurrection Jesus. Tom Stegall notes this in his Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel series. I have repeatedly noted it and Greg as well.

Jeremy:

Would you be willing to state that we have acknowledged you believe in His deity, death and resurrection?

Would you be willing to acknowledge that the crux of the controversy, as we have addressed it, is over what the lost man must believe to be saved?

Can you at least acknowledge these facts?

LM
lmartuneac on 01 Nov 2007 at 12:40 pm #

Jim:

I have been searching on line for any sign of the debate(s) you said you have had with LS proponents. I can’t find any links or articles.

This morning I e-mailed some men in the FG community who know you and have intereacted with you. They were not aware of any LS debates that you have partcipated in.

Would you please direct me to your debates with the LS proponents? Any web sites, blogs or theological journals where your debates and/or interaction with the LS advocates appear would be appreciated.

Thanks,

LM
Rachel on 01 Nov 2007 at 1:45 pm #

Wow, I woke up to something like 12 new posts here. Ya’ll stay up late! LOL I know there are also time zone differences. I just thought it was funny that there was so little activity in the evening while I was awake, then everything happened at night. Sorry, random thoughts. Moving on…

There is much to address here, so I will break up my posts so as not to have one big long post.

Jim,
I asked how you got to our blog because first, I’m just curious that way (ask my husband!). But also, I don’t know much about you or your position (unlike the others that have posted here, I know of them and where they stand), so I thought it would help me understand you better.

I do not consider you a false teacher, in fact, I don’t consider anyone who holds your view a false teacher. I do think you have a false, non-saving gospel, but more on that later.

My question to you (”And anyway, what does that have to do with anything?”) does not preclude opposing views from being discussed. It is not demeaning or belittling. However, I was intentionally firm because I felt that your post necessitated a more firm response. We were having a relatively cordial discussion with Jeremy. Your first post here you didn’t bother to introduce yourself or give any kind of expression of your view. You didn’t contribute to the specific discussion at hand. Your post came off (to me, anyway) as hostile and accusatory. In your first post, you said (and this is what prompted my question above), “It is funny to see accusations made by someone who is not in the FG camp against Jeremy on your blog, but Jeremy is willing to discuss this with an irenic spirit.” You seemed to be saying that Jeremy’s “willing[ness] to discuss this with an irenic spirit” somehow negated the accusations that he was evading the question. Thus, when I asked what that specific comment had to do with anything, I was asking how Jeremy’s willingness to discuss things nicely had anything to do with whether or not he was evading questions.

You said:

“As to your position, I’m sorry that you feel the need to polarize people, I don’t. I prefer to discuss this and if we agree to disagree then we who claim to be Christians should do it in a way that honors Christ.

Here’s the thing: I cannot “agree to disagree” about this because one of us has a false gospel. Bob Wilkin himself has even said this. If I require people to believe in Jesus’ death and res or they aren’t saved, and in reality that’s not true, then I am adding to the gospel and perhaps even keeping some people from being saved. However, if you tell people that all they are required to believe is that Jesus can give them eternal life, and in reality that’s not true, then you are subtracting from the gospel and perhaps assuring people they are saved when they in fact are not. And specifically in our case, our church issued a statement affirming Bob Wilkin, when in fact our church’s teachings are completely opposite (at least on this issue). I don’t want to affirm Wilkin’s teachings on this. I want to make sure that people know exactly where he stands and that it is incorrect and that they shouldn’t be led astray by his “different gospel”. So I don’t desire to polarize people in general, but I do want to mark clearly which side everyone is on. And again, since this is the gospel itself, the teaching of a false gospel is certainly something worth dividing over. I’d rather not polarize, but in this case there is no other biblical option.

You asked:

“Allow me a question as I continue to answer your post, did you come to your convictions by personal study of the bible or are you just supporting the leadership of your church?”

My conclusion is a result of personal study, although I’ll be the first to admit I haven’t read everything there is to read on this debate. But I am also supporting the leadership of my church. It is kind of odd because I feel like I am in two different discussions. On the one hand, I am part of a group that is trying to convince our leadership that this debate is actually happening, that people actually believe that the lost don’t necessarily need to believe in Jesus’ death and res, and that Bob Wilkin is one of those people. Then on the other hand, I am discussing and being asked questions about why I believe that the death and res is required content. So your question sort of addresses both of those areas, thus the reason for my two answers.

Regarding your comment about my “spirit of truth” comment, I guess I just don’t understand what you’re saying. Perhaps you misunderstood my point. I said, “I am polarized from Bob Wilkin, and I believe our church is too. I want that made evident. Not in a mean spirit, but in a spirit of truth.” I was simply saying that our church stands in opposition to Bob Wilkin on this issue, and I want that made evident, but not in a mean-spirited way, only in a spirit of truth, i.e. in a spirit of holding to the truth, rather than unity at the expense of truth (not saying you are doing this). I am not sure how any of that consitutes “prejudging” you or uses rancor or pejorative language.

Perhaps we have both misunderstood each other. Maybe you should remember that we are not Lou, and we will remember that you are not Bob Wilkin. How about that?
lmartuneac on 01 Nov 2007 at 8:16 pm #

Rachel:

You wrote, “And again, since this is the gospel itself, the teaching of a false gospel is certainly something worth dividing over. I’d rather not polarize, but in this case there is no other biblical option.”

You are exactly right. The Bible is very clear and it mandates that we “mark” (point out for others to see) and “avoid” the teachers of “contrary” doctrine, which “Crossless” gospel theology is.

It not simply “worth dividing over,” it MUST be divided over or refusal to do so puts one at odds with the biblical commands to do so.

I am finding several similarities between the LS camp and the “Crossless” camp. Both:

*Try to avoid certain aspects of their position. LS men do not want to discuss their requirements for salvation. Crossless does not want to talk about what they think the sinner must believe to be saved. An ironic and troubling similarity: Neither camp wants to be transparent. We have seen that in this thread by Jeremy with Jim’s support of it.

*Complain that those who reject their theology have an agenda, are mean-spirited, combative, unloving and divisive.

The cause of polarization is the polarizing statements of the “Crossless” gospel advocate.

Unity can only be formed around fidelity to the Scriptures. Primarily Zane Hodges has, through his increasingly unusual teachings, lead men into strange and dangerous doctrinal positions.

I’ll close with two quotes that appear in my book. These are from the chapter titled, A Heart to Heart With Pastors & Christian Leaders. This chapter is largely a discussion of Romans 16:17-18 .

“When people are converted and receive a love of the truth, they are baptized into a body that has an inherent organic unity. Jesus Christ prayed in John 17 for a unity that came to pass at Pentecost. And every person who is baptized into Christ is in union. The unity is God and Spirit created. There is no unity to be created, the unity is there. It is only a unity that is to be maintained. Those who teach contrary to the body of revealed truth that is the center of this unity, they are the ones who create the divisions and create the stumbling blocks.” (Dr. Mark Minnick)

“We must realize that there are consequences to contradicting the Bible’s clear commands. Difficult as it may be to “mark” and “avoid” false teachers, ignoring the biblical command because of a personal friendship or because of the cost will result in consequences. In other words, ignoring those who teach false doctrine opens the door for divisions to be created in the church, maybe even in your church. Such divisions damage the natural unity of the church.” (Me)

“Doctrinal differences necessitate division. However, it is not those who separate who cause the division, but those whose doctrine or behavior necessitates the separation (2/00 FrontLine). The Fundamentalist (who, by definition, practices Biblical separation) does not cause division between believers. Divisions are caused by the brother who does not hold to sound doctrine (e.g., separation), and the Lord requires separation from that errant brother (2/00 Foundation).”

The contrary doctrine of the “Crossless” gospel is what necessitates and demands the division.

LM
jmyers on 01 Nov 2007 at 8:18 pm #

I received an e-mail from Ken Wilson today, and he wanted to correct something I had stated on my own blog and referenced here, so I thought I would issue a correction here as well as on my own blog.

I stated that that in response to the panel question “Must a lost man believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus for eternal salvation?” Ken Wilson answered “Yes.” Ken wanted to let me know that he did not answer “Yes.” Ken’s view is that a person must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, our sin bearer. He is skeptical of the view that one must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, but like me, is searching the Scripture daily to see if these things are so, and/or waiting to see if someone else presents some good exegetical arguments for that view. If anyone here has some Biblical evidence, I sure would like to read it. (And before you just start quoting verses, you might want to read my “Shotgun Hermeneutics” post at my own blog. Reams of verses ripped from context are not proof of anything. I want exegesis; not lists of references).

So of the five panelists, only Tom Stegall answered the question with an unqualified “Yes.” But even he would have to admit (I think) that in light of the eternal life that the apostles received by believing in Jesus for it (and many others in John), the answer to the question has not always been “Yes.” So (though I don’t want to put words in Toms’ mouth) it appears that even Tom would have to qualify his “Yes” answer by saying “Yes, but only in this dispensation.”
Rachel on 01 Nov 2007 at 9:44 pm #

Antonio,

That is fine that you didn’t respond to the first email. My point in bringing them up was really just to make clear that we know of you already and have interacted to some extent. If you didn’t get the second email, then oh well.

In your response to Lou, you indicated that you believe that a lost person is not required to believe in the death and res of Jesus, yet you think such a person is “hypothetical” and virtually impossible. I disagree. First, what are we telling our children? I have a 4-year-old and a 10-month-old. If I can get my 4-year-old to believe that Jesus can take him to heaven when he dies, yet he lacks appropriate understanding of his sin and the penalty that Jesus paid for him, should I be convinced that he is truly saved? If he ever doubts his salvation when he is older should I point him back to that moment? Jeremy Myers has said that his 2-year-old daughter was saved because she believed that w/o knowing anything about sin or Jesus’ death and res. So this is a real situation and not hypothetical in the least.

Second, what about members of other religions who have serious doctrinal error regarding the deity, death, and res of Jesus, as well as our sin? When Bob Wilkin came to our church, one woman asked what she should tell her Jehovah’s Witness son about salvation (I think Jesse talked about this as well in one of the other articles on this blog). Wilkin basically told her not to worry about the errors in JW theology, just focus on getting the man to believe in Jesus for eternal life. I think you yourself have said that such things can be placed on the “back burner” if they seem to be obstacles to someone receiving eternal life. This also is a very real situation and not hypothetical.

Third, someone I know who is currently truly undecided on this issue gave me some examples where he felt that someone would not need to believe in the death and res. These examples were: unique mission field experiences, having partial portions of Scripture (this is certainly quite common around the world), and situations where the death of the lost person is imminent and there isn’t much time.

Fourth, you yourself actually argued for the idea that there is much importance attached to what exactly is required for saving faith. Here is a post you made on the FGA forums awhile back (and contains some of the issues I already mentioned):

“1) Child evangelism is one practical ramification. How much does a child have to understand about “substitutionary” atonement, Jesus being God, or the son of God, etc… What exactly must be known, what exact contents to the object must be exactly known, that will be the difference between eternal life, and almost knowing enough?

Simple faith in Jesus is the key! Believe in Jesus and you will live forever with Him.

“Unless you become like children…”

(For the time being, PLEASE for the sake of not digressing, do not comment on number 2 right now, at least until there are more foundatinal things laid concerning my position. Nevertheless it is a ramification)
2) Another is the issue of evangelizing “Christian” cults. Biblical Christianity is the only religion in the world where works do not in some way contribute to ultimate salvation. In most Christian cults, they refer to the Bible for their doctrine (among other places). They refer to the same Jesus as we do but with misconceptions few or many. The primary purpose of evangelism is to get the individual born into God’s family, thus starting a relationship with God, and starting a true knowledge of Him. The primary aim in evangelism is to get the potential convert to the place where he entrusts his/her eternal well-being to Jesus. At that moment the individual is saved and those dozen or more concommitant gifts (indwelling, sealing, every spiritual blessing in Christ, etc) are imparted to the new convert.

If this new convert is determinate to seek out God and His knowledge and puts forth the effort, he WILL grow in his understanding. The Word will open up to him in a new way, and through time and growth, many of the old misconceptions will be cleared up.

We need to get them saved then encourage them in proper theology. We need to get them saved and then disciple them. Once the Holy Spirit is in their hearts, He can do His job through time and the Word.

(This next one is the hugest one, and one that we all should agree with as Free Grace believers:)

3) Assurance of salvation. Assurance of the possession of eternal life does not come from comparing one’s beliefs in theology with another’s “orthodox” stance. It can cause serious introspection.

What if my concept of Christ’s deity has sufficient misconceptions to invalidate my trust in Jesus alone for eternal life?

What if I have not been convinced about the virgin birth because no one explained it to me and I didn’t even read about it in the evangelistic gospel (the Gospel of John) that my friend gave me?

What if I am confused on how Jesus can actually die in the place of the sinner and how 1 person can die for so many?

What if I believed that Jesus is God but believed in Modalism at the time I may or may not have received eternal life, and I still don’t understand how 3 Persons can be one God?

I could multiply these introspective questions that damage assurance.

The remedy to doubt is not to compare one’s current theology to the perceived “orthodox” theology of the day. It is remedied when one looks to Christ and His promise in faith. For perfect and certain assurance is of the essense of faith in Christ’s message.

4) It has practical ramifications on how we preach the gospel. When we come to the understanding that any and all biblical, rational, experiential information that we give the potential convert is NOT for the purpose of assent so that he may receive eternal life, but is for the purpose of persuading him that Jesus is reliable, sufficient, willing and able to guarantee eternal life to them when they trust in Him for it.

This liberates our delivery from using a check-list of laundry items making sure the convert assents to them all.

We like Paul in Athens can cater to the specific needs of the audience, addressing the main barriers to faith, being confident that if we “miss” something that it will not be disastrous to the faith of the person who is trusting in Christ for eternal life.

I am sure that if I think about this longer that I can come up with some other practical ramifications as well.”

So even you have acknowledged that there are practical ramifications and situations in which our opposing views on what is actually required to believe for eternal life make a significant difference.

Regarding your question about the man reading the book of John and dying before reading it all, I will comment in the other thread.
Rachel on 01 Nov 2007 at 10:08 pm #

Jeremy,

I am disappointed by your response to me. On the issues where I have noted your clear statements, you have refused to answer and/or “don’t have the time”. You make a joke out of a point of mine rather than respond to it. Then you twist the question I asked into something else:

“So in answer to the question ‘Is belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus always a requirement for the lost person to believe in order to receive eternal life?’ it seems everybody is answering ‘No.’

(emphasis added)
The question did not have the word “always” in it, in fact I specifically said that it did not mean “always”, and that in fact no one here is debating that anyway so it is pointless to mention it. I do not understand why you continue to bring this up.

But, since you don’t have time to answer any more questions, I won’t respond to any more of your post. We do thank you for posting the clarification of Ken’s view. It is always important to represent someone else’s view accurately.
lmartuneac on 01 Nov 2007 at 10:12 pm #

Rachel:

You wrote to Antonio, “Second, what about members of other religions who have serious doctrinal error regarding the deity, death, and res of Jesus, as well as our sin? ”

Antonio’s response (representative of the “Crossless” advocates) is that a lost man’s (JW, Mormon, Jew) unbelief and/or open rejection of Christ’s deity, death or resurrection is to be viewed as a mere, “misconception” to be put, “on the back burner.” He expressed this position at his blog.

I was a missionary in South Africa. Had the “Crossless” gospel been introduced into our IFB circles it would have been identified an corrected immediately. The teachers of that position would have been kindly asked, by the national pastors, to depart.

This issue also arose when Antonio was headed to India. I used the example of William Carey to illustrate the Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel in India. Here are those articles.

http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/09/travesty-of-crossless-gospel-in-gold.html

http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/10/william-carey-refutes-crossless-gospel.html

LM

PS: I am enjoying the notes from you folks here. Very precise and on message.
jmyers on 01 Nov 2007 at 11:37 pm #

Rachel,

I am not trying to evade questions. I am simply trying to clarify them so they can be answered Biblically. So either allow my rewording of poorly phrased questions, or allow me to not answer them. But you can’t ask a poorly phrased question and then demand that I answer it as asked.

That would be like a Muslim asking you “Yes or no. Is the Christian God three beings?” You either can’t answer that with a simple “Yes” or “No” or it has to be reworded so it can be answered with a “Yes” or “No.”

The bottom line is that I have answered so many questions related to this issue over the past several months, and yet nobody has yet provided one single shred of exegetical evidence for the view that I am trying to learn more about. I find this terribly alarming.

The question people keep demanding I answer is “Does the lost man have to believe the deity of Christ, and his death and resurrection?”.

I have said several times over already that I am undecided on this question. If I answer it in other ways, maybe people will understand my answer: I don’t know. I am not taking a stance on this right now. Currently, I am inclined toward the “no” answer simply becuase in this was not a requirement in previous dispensations. But if it is a requirement in this dispensation, I want Biblical proof for this change.

So somebody, please, I’m begging, give me something from Scripture. Stop demanding that I answer your question. If you think the answer is “Yes” then prove to me from Scriptural exegesis why you think that is the answer.
Jim on 02 Nov 2007 at 6:34 am #

I will try to address all who have responded to me or asked questions, forgive me if I take a bit to write, as I (like Paul) have in addition to my ministry avocation a full time tent making vocation as a software engineering executive leading about 100 people. Hopefully, I will have some time tonight or this weekend.
lmartuneac on 02 Nov 2007 at 6:40 am #

Jim:

Thanks for getting back.

I am looking forward to reading about your debates that you referred to with the Lordship Salvation proponents.

I am hopeful there is something from your side of the debate that I can glean for my book or post at my blog.

For now can you just give us the name(s) of th LS proponents you debated and where these debates took place?

Thanks,

Lou
lmartuneac on 02 Nov 2007 at 6:41 am #

Jeremy:

Would you be willing to state that we have acknowledged you believe in His deity, death and resurrection?

Would you be willing to acknowledge that the crux of the controversy, as we have addressed it, is over what the lost man must believe to be saved?

Can you at least acknowledge these facts?

LM
lmartuneac on 02 Nov 2007 at 7:30 am #

Jeremy:

If a young couple in the church you attend were to ask you the question you’ve been asked here, what would your response be? Would you say, “I am undecided… I’m begging, give me something from Scripture. Stop demanding that I answer your question.”

If your claims to be “undecided” are genuine then that would probably have to be your answer because it appears you genuinely do not know what the answer to the question is.

Would that be a fair and accurate interpretation?

Are you doing your own study to come to a conclusion on this issue? Some of the above appears as though you asking someone to do the study for you.

LM
Rachel on 02 Nov 2007 at 1:30 pm #

Jeremy,

I understand that you may not have time to respond to my post. But I have decided to post it anyway, and it will be up to you to decide to respond or not.

Giving examples of questions that truly can’t be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” does not automatically mean that the question I have asked is in the same category. I am well aware that some questions can’t be answered that simply. But some can. This is one of them. The question is not poorly phrased, it is crystal clear. As I previously stated, the question asks, “Is” belief in the death and res required, not “was” it required or “has it always been” required. And, in context (which of course is of utmost importance), no one would even think of interpreting the question to mean “always” since that is not what is up for debate. I’m not sure how else to say it.

Regarding whether or not you are “undecided”. First, I have shown 3 examples from your own words that indicate you are not undecided. You stated in your first post here that you had a “view”, then on your blog you said that you had a “position” that you wanted to share at the FGA panel. Then in the FGA forums you posted that you think your daughter was saved when she was 2 because she believed that Jesus exists and can take her to heaven. You specifically acknowledged that she had no understanding of the cross, the res, or even her own sin. And now on the other thread here you have said that you have a “persuasion” and a “conviction”.

If you are open to changing your mind, then that’s a good thing. I would hope that we would all always be open to changing our mind on anything if convincing evidence is presented. But being open to the possibility that you are wrong is not the same thing as being undecided. If I am “undecided” about, say, who will win the Super Bowl, it’s because I see advantages for both teams. One team may have an awesome quarterback, yet the other team has an amazing defense. I am “undecided” because I see both sides. If I think one team has all the right stuff and the other team has nothing, then I can only conclude that the first team will probably win, of course leaving open the possibility that anything can happen. But I would never consider myself “undecided” at that point.

But as I said above, it is clear where you stand on this issue (unless you want to retract the statement about your daughter and say that you are no longer as certain as you were then). Beyond that, it would seem we are at an impasse here because we are just repeating ourselves. Your position has been established, and unless you plan to retract your statements, I plan to move on from this particular aspect of the discussion.
Rachel on 02 Nov 2007 at 9:32 pm #

Jeremy,

As with my last post to you, I realize you probably won’t have time to respond to this post either.

You seem to have an issue with using the word “saved” or its forms as a synonym for “receiving eternal life”. In one of your first posts here, you said:

“Clarity of terminology is vitally important in this debate. The term “salvation” in Scripture rarely (if ever) refers solely and only to receiving eternal life. In fact, I personally can’t find one place where it refers solely and only to receiving eternal life. Not even Ephesisans 2:8-9, which in context, refers to being seated with Christ in the heavenlies, etc. So if someone were to ask me “Is belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus necessary for salvation?” my answer is either “Yes” or “What do you mean by ’salvation’ and is that the Biblical use of that term?”

What I really appreciate about your response to my comment is that you seemed to have clarified what you mean by the term by writing “saved/receive eternal life.” If you would allow me to remove the word “saved” then I can answer your question more directly. So, as reworded, you question is: “Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection required for a lost person to receive eternal life?”

Then in the other thread here, you said:

“Again, I wouldn’t use the term ‘everlasting salvation’ since it is only used in Heb 5:9 , and is not equivalent to everlasting life. Though many today use the term ’salvation’ to refer to receiving eternal life, doing so is based purely on tradition.”

Perhaps it is based on tradition. That doesn’t necessarily make it bad or wrong. Either way though, I find it quite puzzling that using the term “salvation” or its forms bothers you. Bob Wilkin seems to think it’s okay to use the term “salvation” to refer to receiving everlasting life (I reckon his opinion is fairly important to you). Awhile back (3 months ago, to be exact), I asked Bob about that specifically in an email. I said, “Do you believe that a person needs to understand that they’re getting ’saved’, or simply that they need the gift of eternal life? Do you use ’salvation’ and ‘eternal life’ interchangeably, or do you see them as having different meanings? And finally, would you necessarily use the terms ’saved or ’salvation’ in a gospel presentation?” He responded, “Jesus rarely used the words saved or salvation when He evangelized (see John 3:17 as a rare use). What the Lord Jesus referred to over and over again is everlasting life. So that is what I stress, though I do sometimes speak of eternal salvation.” So while Bob may not use the term very often, he does at least occasionally use the term, so he apparently considers it a valid use of the term. He also seems to think that John 3:17 is a place where the term “salvation” refers to everlasting life. So it would seem that he thinks the term is biblical as well.

In addition, here’s a quote from an article of his:

“The Book of Acts freely offers eternal salvation solely upon believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, and there are no additional conditions for that salvation. This is clearly seen in the conversions of Cornelius and the Philippian jailer, and in the decision of the Jerusalem Council.

Following the debate of January 1996, thirty people who believe in salvation by faith plus works signed up for this newsletter. I’m praying for their salvation. Having myself been saved from that error, I’m keenly concerned for these souls. How wonderful it would be to hear that they have received the free gift of eternal life by simple faith in Christ.

Salvation is found only in Christ (Acts 4:12 ); He saves only those who believe in Him-and Him alone-for eternal life (Acts 15:7-11 ; 16:31).”

I counted seven different times in that short quote that Bob used the term “salvation” or its forms to refer to everlasting life/justification. It would seem from this article as well that Bob sees Acts 16:31 as another place where “salvation” refers to everlasting life.

Beyond that, the GES “Affirmation of Belief” lists “Salvation” as the first heading, and the first sentence under the heading of “Salvation” says, “The sole condition for receiving everlasting life is faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ…” This appears to be using the terms interchangeably.

Finally, the GES website states as its PURPOSE the following:

“The aim of GES is to promote the clear proclamation of God’s free salvation through faith alone in Christ alone, which is properly correlated with and yet distinguished from issues related to discipleship.”

I am unsure why you would be so uncomfortable with a term that is so incorporated into the very Statement of Belief as well as the Purpose of the organization you work for and minister in.
Jim on 03 Nov 2007 at 6:29 am #

Lou/Jesse/Rachel,

Sorry, I put this in the wrong section, Jesse please remove or comment out the other post.

In responding I’m going to write sequentually answering in the order I have seen my name mentioned. I would like to do this in one post. I assume that will be fine if not let me know. Before I do I would like to point out although I am fond of intellectually-honest debate, most of the statements made by my opponents to prove that I am wrong have been of the intellectually-dishonest variety. Before I can be accused of intellectually-dishonest debate myself, I would like explain the difference.

There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:

1. Revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. Revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

There are also, rules of debate and moderation. Since I am a retired military person the use of Roberts Rules of Order makes sense to me, these were written by West Point Graduate Henry M. Robert, are used to govern debate in many organizations. For example, one of the rules, number 43 says,

“It is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member, but the nature or consequences of a measure may be condemned in strong terms. It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.”

Most of the rules relates to procedure like limiting debate. Those other rules are irrelevant to an online debate like that between me and a non-crossless gospel opponent. If there is an absence of moderation, I will refer to non-honest debate tactics.

I am also going to refer to logic where applicable since all truth is God’s truth, and logic as Norman Geisler points out is a method of apologetic defense.

Lou,

You wrote on 29 Oct 2007 at 7:27 pm, “Jim Johnson from Rocky Mt. Bible College is antithetical to Scripture.” How am I “antithetical” to scripture, all scripture? Some scripture? I’m not sure you’re your point is here. You go on to quote Romans 16:17 . This is a passage that deals not with public debate as we have here, but a church, which is the context of Paul’s remarks to the Romans. I have not caused any division that I am aware of, and in context Paul goes on to say, “For these are the kind who do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites.” So I believe that you err when you make that accusation about me, you know nothing about me or my ministry. And Paul goes on to say, “By their smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of the naive.” This too by implication is not true of me. So in your post you have disparaged the school I teach at and the seminary where I attend, and me personally. All of this by using a bible verse out of its context. This is not a way to get your point across in a public debate or discussion. In debate, this is hearsay: a debater cites something he heard or read but has not confirmed through his own personal observation or research from reliable sources.

Then you make another unsubstantiated statement: “What has been irrefutably shown from the numerous articles (primarily by Greg Schliesmann) at my blog, and especially in the continuing series by Tom Stegall at the Grace Family Journal http://www.duluthbible.org/246451.ihtml is that “Crossless Gospel” theology is “contrary doctrine” and the “cause (of) divisions and offenses” in the FG community.” Really, how about those of us on the crossless side, you automatically assume that you’re correct in your interpretation. This is called citing over-valued credentials, a debater accurately claims something about himself or something he wants to prove, but the claim made is one that attempts to get the audience to over rely on a credential that is or may be over-valued by the debater and/or audience. Unfortunately you err here as well as there are many who are sympathetic to Tom Stegall who believe that the matter is far from settled. Dr. Charles C. Bing the president of the FGA and many other members of the association of which I am a founding member are not settled on this yet. As to your position being irrefutable, until you provide the exegetical evidence from scripture instead of quoting verses and other men, it is far from irrefutable. You are now using a false premise to show that your evidence is irrefutable. False premise is used when debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not; in court, such a statement will be objected to by opposing counsel on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence.” To make this stick you need to bring exegetical evidence to the table.

You go on to say about what you’re required to do according to the bible, is that “our response in the first place is mandated.” This as if you must command all who can hear you. The accusations you make are not becoming of a Christian. Please get your facts straight before you do this.

Then on 31 Oct 2007 at 11:35 pm, you write “You will need to become accustomed to cries of “foul,” over the label, “Crossless gospel.” So far, on this blog I have not cried “foul” but pointed out that the term is pejorative and does not apply to me, and if you were to look at my website, I can’t even understand how you got that. Antonio and Jeremy have issues that they don’t agree with me on and vice versa. Also, “Beginning on p. 10 Pastor Stegall irrefutably proves that the teaching of Hodges, Wilkin, Myers, da Rosa, Jim Johnson and the GES is correctly labeled a “Crossless” gospel.” Did you know I am not a member of GES? Also, did you know that another professor friend of mine concluded after reading Tom Stegall’s last two installments on the crossless gospel series was saddened that he had not done the required exegetical work to be “irrefutable.” And he is sympathetic to Tom Stegall and the non-crossless gospel position! We also have a Greek exegesis group here in the Denver area that this pastor and theologian attends with many of us “crossless gospel” advocates. He even sits down to search the scriptures together with us in the original languages. So here again you have used another dishonest debate tactic called stereotyping in which the debater “proves” his point about a particular person by citing a stereotype that supposedly applies to the group that opponent is a member of; dismissing criticism by citing a limited set of sources.

When you do provide scriptural evidence, it is someone else’s and even that has major flaws. This is also a logical fallacy, which is called a “biased sample”, this particular fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population of data based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some manner. It has the following form:

1. Sample S, which (is biased toward a non refined FG position), is taken from population P (the scriptures).
2. Conclusion C (a crossless gospel) is drawn about Population P based on S.

Committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:

1. X percent of all observed A’s are B’s.
2. Therefore, X percent of all A’s are B’s.

The fallacy is committed when the sample of A’s is likely to be biased in some manner. A sample is biased or loaded when the method used to take the sample is likely to result in a sample that does not adequately represent the population from which it is drawn. This is particularly true in the case of taking a scripture out of its intended context. In this case those who are claiming a crossless gospel is being taught and preached have not taken a wide enough sample from both the Old and New Testaments to make their argument stick. When they do I will be willing to reconsider my position.

This will prove especially difficult in biblical exegesis as you would have to exegete a number of entire NT and OT books to prove an airtight biblical theological argument. In stead of this, since we don’t have time to do this, we in the FGA guard against a biased sample by using peer review of our argument of a passage or passages. This is starting to occur with those who have enough courage to engage in an open honest examination of the scriptures (not the writings of men) to determine what God inspired the author to say.

Feel free to bring evidence to the table to support your claims or else withdraw them.

Jesse,

Thank you for you kind response, I believe that it honors our Lord and each other as brothers in Christ. I believe your post was on 01 Nov 2007 at 12:05 am. The reason I mention this is I was up all night and started to read this stuff at 3:00 am then stopped to write a post to let everyone know I had not forgotten them. Then it was off to work. One suggestion to help as we process all this; when you are engaged in individual study, a method that is tried and true is observe the text yourself before you interpret its meaning, bombard the text with as many questions as possible. If you would like I can send you an aid that I developed for my students to walk them through the process. Also, start and end with the text of the bible (it is one of the first things we learn in hermeneutics). The only exception to this would be to use the intro of a commentary to get some historical setting on the passage. [Osborne, 1991] I don’t always feel the need to do this, but it is there in case you need it. Then it is fine to go on to read books, articles, commentaries, etc., but that should only be done after the difficult work with the text is done. I would also caution to be very careful about what men have written, the last man who wrote an inerrant work was the apostle John. I have even gone back and had to change some of the things I have written and taught because I depended on the writings of men. We all want to be faithful Disciples of Christ Jesus (even a “heretic” like me). Also, I can identify with squeezing in hours at seminary. The dumbest thing I ever did was take classes at the seminary while I had to teach one in the bible college!

Anyway, I have also been concerned about what Bob and others have written, but have sought them out and listened and discussed their position. What I find in many of the things written about them is that they are taken out of context. And as I said before they are fallible men just as I am, just as we all are. I think that people are spring loaded to claim heresy and false teaching without doing diligence to seek to understand and then be understood. My journey about the controversy surrounding salvation/soteriology started about 7 years ago; in fact it is what led me in to ministry and seminary. I watched a church I had joined after I retired from the USAF; torn apart by people who thought they knew everything about salvation. No humility, only arrogance and condescension. In the end, these lordship salvation proponents were forced out of our church and a splinter group left with them, it didn’t last very long, their group disintegrated a few months later. It is only by the grace of God that the church survived and actually has a permanent facility now with over 500 members and growing. The senior pastor is a best friend of mine and I still stay in touch. It seems that in this case instead of dialogue, division is the first thing planned or referred to. Bad idea.

Again, thank you for being kind in your response to me, I look forward to sharing some of the things I have learned and am still learning as God provides the illumination and Grace for me to understand.

Lou,

You wrote again on 01 Nov 2007 at 9:51 am. The content was to ask me about debates with Lordship proponents, since I am not a published luminary; my position has not afforded an opportunity to do much else other than watch those much more learned than I and interact with people locally. I have debated lordship/hyper Calvinists face to face 10 times, and electronically 3 times. These were private debates between myself and someone who either approached me about my views or posted disparaging things about myself or people whom they do not agree with from a Lordship standpoint. In reference to the crossless gospel I have one discussion with George Zeller and Tom Stegall each, which as I usually do, keep between myself and the person I am speaking with.

Also, I am honored that you would want to use some of what I have written, but my concern is that with the differences between us, it would not be used that way. In fact, I don’t have much time other than loving and leading my family which is about to include grandchildren, my ministry as a disciple which includes teaching and preaching, and a full time secular job.

You posted again on the same subject 01 Nov 2007 at 12:40 pm. Apologies for the delay, and as I said above, my interaction has been up-close and personal versus the few times I did it electronically. I do have the email trail and have written in principal about those who I have interacted with.

Rachel,

You posted on 01 Nov 2007 at 1:45 pm, and you are right about staying up late, I usually only get 4 or 5 hours of sleep a night (it’s an old military thing). And thank you for pointing out that you don’t know much about me. It would be good for all of us to get to know more of each other.

You said, “I do not consider you a false teacher, in fact, I don’t consider anyone who holds your view a false teacher. I do think you have a false, non-saving gospel, …” Unfortunately, someone who has a false, non-saving message is a false teacher according to the following biblical persons: The Apostle Paul pronounced anathema, the curse of God, upon Judaizers who were troubling and misleading new believers in Galatia (Galatians 1:8-9 ). The Apostle John told believers not to support in any way the work of false teachers. He said that we should not give live lodging, or even a greeting (2 John 10-11 ). The Apostle Peter had some tough words about false teachers (2 Peter 2 ). The Lord Jesus wanted no unity with the self righteous. And He told His disciples that following Him would lead in some cases to division even between fathers and sons and mothers and daughters (Matthew 10:34-36 ). On top of all this the Scriptures directly command us to “contend” earnestly for the faith (Jude 3 ) as Lou pointed out. The word “contend” suggests a struggle, a conflict, a need to accept and even promote disunity.

The gospel is worth defending. To do otherwise is to shirk our God-given responsibility. But to defend it you must be persuaded completely that you have the right gospel. I am convinced from my study of the scriptures alone and not from the writings of men that I am correct. How about you? It is always my aim to “Make every effort to present [myself] yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately.” James 3:1 also comes to mind frequently when I write or speak.

You also wrote, “Your first post here you didn’t bother to introduce yourself or give any kind of expression of your view. You didn’t contribute to the specific discussion at hand.” Forgive me as that was not my intent, I have been watching this crossless thing for a while now and have noticed how Lou uses third person instead of being direct with the person he is speaking about. There may be another reason, I also have a very direct manner, and I guess that is because I served 22 years in the military, flew on B-52s in one war, and am a Texan. I think in my last post I have given a link to my ministry’s web site. So a lot of who I am and what I believe is there. If you or others have questions, please ask and I will try to answer them to the best of my ability. Again, forgive me if I have offended you.

The statement, “I cannot ‘agree to disagree’ about this because one of us has a false gospel”, I totally agree with. It still amazes many of us in the FGA that people keep coming back to the necessity of believing in the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus, and as critically important as it is, but miss that believing the promise of eternal life that the Lord Jesus is not important or completely ignored. As I read the OT, I see two things very clearly, sacrifice and promise related to the soteriology of those dispensations. Sacrifice as a type of the one to come. But the need fro the unsaved to believe in the Person of God as savior and His promise of redemption. Graham Scroggie called it the “Unfolding Drama of Redemption.” I was listening to Zane’s 2 part mp3 presentation on the theology of the free grace gospel and have already read his written works. Over an over again he makes the point that it is the cross work and resurrection of Christ (which he says is very important to tell/preach to an unbeliever) that enables the Savior to offer them the promise of eternal life and for them to believe in the One who is able to save!

How can so many people who criticize the refined free grace position on the suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord, get stuck on belief in those facts, and not understand it is the belief in the Person Who went though that for us to be saved? As Zane so eloquently put it, “we are leading people to Christ. We are leading them to a person who that can safely entrust their eternal destiny to.”

If I as an unsaved person were to agree with traditional FG brothers and sisters insistence of belief in all of their content, but failed to believe that Jesus gives me eternal life by trusting in Him alone for it – I would remain unsaved. That is my position. In fact, I believed in the promise of John 3:16 and did not understand what soteriology was or what it was about the cross or resurrection that was so important they were mentioned to me in the presentation. I came to Jesus with childlike faith. I wonder is the FG movement becoming like the Pharisees who probably started with well meaning “additional” content until they had volumes of additional content that had to be included to be saved? This is very scary ground to be on as it is what I believe happened to the church after the Apostles passed from the scene.

Forgive me if I am a bit passionate about this. It seems that people are dividing over content of the gospel versus the promise that Jesus Christ asked us to believe. That as far as I can tell (other than hypothetical situations which have no pastoral value) most of us agree on and actually present in the sharing of the gospel with the lost. I preach the cross and resurrection as part of any evangelistic appeal. Also, I believe that our Lord can save people even when the message is not perfectly crystal clear with all necessary “content.” In the last two months I have led several people to the Savior. Thank the Father they responded to a simple Gospel! Now one of them is learning (through discipleship) all about Jesus the Messiah/Christ, His divinity, crosswork, and what the resurrection means to their future.

The FGA’s new executive director had an interesting perspective on the whole debate as part of his PhD thesis, “Getting the Gospel Wrong”. It is located here:

http://www.hixson.org/docs/Hixson%20Getting%20the%20Gospel%20Wrong–Final%20Copy.pdf

I would recommend it in its entirety but especially pages 46-89.

God is not unable to save those who put simple trust in His Son for eternal life.

You said that “there is no other biblical option.” Really? As an elder among a plurality of elders in two different churches, we always exhausted every avenue of discussion and debate before we participated in the ensuing split of a gathering of believers. And then usually only as the one’s who had to care for those who stayed, in other words we attempted to reconcile. I have a friend who’s FG church was just split by division over the content of the gospel. Sometimes division is warranted, but not in this case. As said before, I have been part of that once and it is the reason I never want to go through it again. In the blogosphere, in our case people can cause division among believers without accountability and that also disturbs me. I wonder what the Savior will say to us when we all stand before Him. It is the lack of accountability to any qualified leadership that makes me cringe with what is going on. At least in a church the elders can mediate and decide with a binding decision as in Acts 15 . Out here in cyberspace, it’s all opinion versus evidence.

Thank you for your answer on bible study, it does point out that there is a lot to read and it increases every day, but as Mortimer Adler put it, we have to understand an author’s whole argument before we judge or criticize. One other question, have you any training in bible study/hermeneutics? Also you may have noticed Jeremy and I both ask for exegetical evidence, to support an argument against an interpretation of a passage. Another thing that disturbs me greatly is when engaged in this I have seldom seen anyone who claims a crossless gospel against people like me or others actually produce it. Perhaps they have not the training and practice in doing it. I would like to do a mini example of the result of that now. In Tom Stegall’s 4th installment (which Lou has presented to us) on the crossless gospel, he makes the statement at the end of the examination of John 6:47 , “There are no valid, contextual reasons for viewing the “believes in Me” phrase of John 6:47 as a crossless message of life.” I am not going to show the translation/diagramming, or outlining work (if you would like to see it I can email it zipped up) since from these steps I have come to a conclusion that is different that Tom about the passage. Here’s why:

Verse 6:47 contains two primary clauses. Both as such are independent clauses (they usually contain a finite verb form) that are not dependent on or subordinate to any other clause. This is significant as it means the phrase can stand alone. From a contextual discourse view would yield the thought that verses 47 and 48 are summarizing the preceding debate. Also Tom Stegall’s point about this being a reference to cross and resurrection at this point is a bit premature. In verse 51, “eating” the living Bread is a figure of speech meaning to believe in Him, like the figures of coming to Him (v. 35), listening to Him, (v. 45), and seeing Him (v. 40). This view is held by a number of theologians, one is Dr. Tom Constable who is the chair of biblical exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary. To eat of this Bread is to live forever (cf. vv. 40, 47, 50, 54, 58). Jesus’ revelation about the Bread was then advanced in that not only is the Father giving the Bread (Jesus), but also Jesus is giving Himself: This Bread is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Salvation is secured by the sacrificial death of the Lamb of God (1:29). By His death, life came to the world and there is the promise, to believe Jesus’ promise of that life. The latter is belief in His person, not in the facts of what He is going to do that saves.

Also in the preceding context the real issue in the discourse is the drawing of the Father. In verse 43-44 He makes this clear. In verse 45 He clarifies what this involves. In verse 46, He clarifies it even further; Jesus explains how God draws people to Himself by explaining how He does not do it. It is not by giving a mystical revelation of Himself in His unveiled splendor to people. Jesus is the only One who has seen God fully (cf. 1:18 which by the way contains the Greek word from which we get the word for exegesis). He is the only mediator of that knowledge of God without which no one can know God. God teaches people about Himself through Jesus. In verses 47 through 48, Jesus introduced His repetition and summary of the essential truth He was teaching with another strong affirmation. This summary continues through verse 51. In 49-50, Jesus had been speaking of everlasting life and had claimed that He as the Bread of Life could provide it. Now he clarified the distinction between the physical bread that God provided in the wilderness and the spiritual Bread that He provided in Jesus. The result of eating the manna was temporary satisfaction but ultimately death, but the result of believing in Jesus was permanent satisfaction and no death. In verse 51, the clause contains a final summary of the main ideas in this section. Jesus is living Bread, not manna, but He came down from God as it did. Those who believe on Him will experience eternal life. The terms coming to Jesus (v. 35), listening to Him (v. 45), and seeing Him (v. 40) all mean believing in Him (v. 35). Jesus would give His body as bread so the world could live spiritually. He referred to His coming sacrificial death. Not only had the Father given the Bread, but the Bread would now give Himself. However, to make that the content of what it means to believe is to transfer something into the text that is not there. In fact, if you go on into verse 52 though 59 you get the real meaning of “believing.” By referring to His flesh and blood He was figuratively referring to His whole person. This is a figure of speech called synecdoche in which one part stands for the whole. Jesus was illustrating belief, what it means to appropriate Him by faith (v. 40). He expressed the same truth negatively (v. 53) and then positively (v. 54a). He referred again to resurrection because it is the inauguration of immortal eternal life (cf. vv. 39, 40, 44). In verse 58, Jesus was concluding by Jesus returned to His initial claim that He had come from the Father (v. 29). The Jews often substituted the term “heaven” for “God” out of respect for God’s name, and Jesus did that here. This is a figure of speech called metonymy in which the speaker or writer uses the name of one thing for that of another associated with or suggested by it. The Israelites who ate the physical bread that came down from God died in the wilderness (vv. 30–31), but those who believe in the spiritual Bread that came down from Him will live forever. Based on exegetical work I believe that Tom Stegall’s interpretation on this passage is flawed.

So the revelation that there is a correct object of faith is implied the Person of Jesus Christ with the promise to believe. Again if you look at the whole context of what FG teachers teach and/or preach then it becomes clear that this is what we present, but if someone has not absolutely believed the promise of Jesus for eternal life they have not “believed.” No matter how much information they may have about sin, the concept of the Messiah, the life, death, atonement, resurrection, and ascension until they believe that Jesus can give them eternal life – no eternal life.

I have not taken a verse out of context but actually related the passage in its context? The central idea of Jesus appeal to mankind was to “believe” in Him. Remember, and this is important, this was pre-cross encounter. So to ask and answer the question, what was the concept of the Messiah the Jews had at the time and what did they think of Jesus is extremely pertinent? It is apparent that even the disciples did not completely understand who Jesus was until after the resurrection, no one that I know of will say that people were not saved before the cross and resurrection or that the core content of saving faith was different before the cross. If they do then the covenant theologians are right and dispensationalism does teach two ways of salvation! If Tom had presented the proper argument from exegesis then many more of us would sit up and take notice.

Until someone who is making a serious charge as false teaching or heresy relates a given passage in its surrounding context they have not made a biblical argument. And until that is built up to the paragraph and book level and then compared to the rest of scripture the argument is not “irrefutable” no matter what school of hermeneutics you or I come from.

I would like to move next to the “spirit of truth” for a moment, “I want that made evident, but not in a mean-spirited way, only in a spirit of truth, i.e. in a spirit of holding to the truth, rather than unity at the expense of truth (not saying you are doing this). I am not sure how any of that constitutes “prejudging” you or uses rancor or pejorative language.”

Biblically, there are only 4 instances of the use of this phrase, it is commonly rendered “Spirit of truth” (In the NET bible they are: John 14:17 ; 15:26; 16:13; and 1 John 4:6 ). I assume your referring to the latter verse which John is contrasting the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit? If not please clarify so I can understand, since I don’t believe that I am a deceiver. Since the first 4 verses deal with the Holy Spirit’s ministry to the believer, the only option is for me to take this as your position, that is you are correct and mine is of the spirit of deceit.

Also, thank you for recognizing that I am trying to be irenic on this blog. However, as I have said to Lou and others, there are claims being made without due diligence to see what I really think or the exegetical proof to substantiate those claims. The fact that I have been labeled a crossless gospel proponent is offensive to me as a Christian, a disciple of Jesus Christ, a teacher of the bible, and as a shepherd. If this is crying foul (another fallacy) by not holding people accountable for their own words then that is another label I will have to endure. The real fact is that other brothers and sisters are making claims and applying labels like this to people without proper regard for biblical truth. This is offensive to me as well. I will take your comment about Lou to heart, and thank you for not making the same mistake he makes by labeling me and stereotyping another member of the royal household of God.

I would like to ask you another question, in your church, you said that you are part of a group that is trying to make the issue of a crossless gospel evident. Are there refined free grace people in your church? I assume so since evidently Bob spoke there. The reason I ask is that if disagreement can’t be resolved, then it is better to agree to disagree and let those who are in the minority leave quietly, it is not easy to do but it does the least damage to the congregation.

Having seen division from a distance in several churches where family and friends related to me what happened, and both my family and I experienced the pain of it first hand, I would be very careful about how any group goes about working through issues like this. The passages in 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17 ; 6:19, 20 come to mind.

I look forward to the answers to my questions and further dialogue. Thanks for hearing me out.
lmartuneac on 03 Nov 2007 at 10:06 am #

Jim:

Your post is so long, it not going to be feasible for me to sort through all of it in a timely manner. I will touch on just a few items and very briefly.

1) Roman 16:17 applies perfectly to the issue, and in the Free Grace (FG) community. IMO, it does not matter if the “contrary” doctrine originates from or is introduced into a church. The “contrary” doctrine of the “Crossless Gospel” is being introduced into churches and FG circles primarily by the GES, Bob Wilkin, Zane Hodges and Jeremy Myers. There are, of course, others.

The teaching of Zane Hodges that has come to be known at the “Crossless Gospel” is the “contrary doctrine” that is the cause of division and offence. I am beginning a new series at my blog on this very subject.

http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com

By entering this blog in what appears to be doctrinal agreement with and support of the men who take the “Crossless Gospel” position, you have identified yourself as an apologist for that position.

It is not my desire or intent to include you among the men who propagate the “Crossless Gospel” if you reject this teaching that Zane Hodges has introduced into the FG community and some churches that count themselves as among the FG movement. Should I consider you in agreement with the teaching of Zane Hodges on the Gospel? Please advise so that I can reference you fairly and accurately. Thanks!

2) I notice you and Antonio have interjected Dr. Bing and Hixson’s names into your posts. At his blog Antonio published details of a private phone call he had with Dr. Bing. This is highly irregular, but more so, very unethical if he did it without Dr. Bing’s prior consent; wouldn’t you agree?

Considering the importance of this issue and their position of leadership in the FGA, I think it would be wise for you men to let Bing & Hixson speak for themselves instead of implying that they have any position at all, including that they may be undecided. Unless you have been given permission from either of them to speak for and/or suggest any position they may or may not take, it is IMO inappropriate to interject them into the discussion. The use of their names by you men may give the appearance of playing politics. Jim, I don’t think you want to give that impression; do you?

3) Regarding your debates with the proponents of Lordship Salvation (LS): I wondered why nothing could be found from you in that debate and no one I spoke to in the FG community was aware of any contribution you have made in the battle against LS. You have explained why there has been no significant contribution from you in the LS debate, and I thank you for that explanation.

4) You also quoted me this way, “You (Lou) wrote on 29 Oct 2007 at 7:27 pm, ‘Jim Johnson from Rocky Mt. Bible College is antithetical to Scripture.’ How am I ‘antithetical” to scripture, all scripture? Some scripture? I’m not sure you’re your point is here.”

I trust you would not deliberately misquote or twist a quote out of shape to score political points or discredit a man you have a doctrinal disagreement with. I also assume that you would not want to turn what is an important doctrinal discussion into a personality clash. You don’t want to give that impression, do you Jim? The way you used that quote, however, could be taken to give that impression. I trust you would be seriously concerned if you had have mistakenly done this; wouldn’t you?

Here is the paragraph I wrote to Stephen and Rachel that you lifted your quote from,

“From what I (Lou) have read at your blog and similar comments you shared at mine, you folks heard enough from Bob Wilkin at your church to realize this teaching is antithetical to Scripture. The “Crossless” theology that originated with Zane Hodges is being forwarded not only by Wilkin, Myers, da Rosa, but also (who I assume just posted is) Jim Johnson from Rocky Mt. Bible College is antithetical to Scripture.”

If you read again that paragraph I think you would agree that my remarks were referenced specifically and exclusively to the theology of the “Crossless Gospel.” You do see that don’t you?

The ““Crossless” theology that originated with Zane Hodges” is antithetical to Scripture. You appear to be among the men who teach, what has come to be known as, the “Crossless Gospel,” that is correct isn’t it Jim? Unless, of course, you do not want to be identified with the teaching of Zane Hodges on the Gospel, which I asked for your clarification over. (See #1 above)

I trust you now have a better grasp on what I was trying to communicate in that paragraph. I am sorry that my sentence structure may have contributed to your confusion.

Sorry, but is all I have time for.

LM
Rachel on 03 Nov 2007 at 4:29 pm #

Jim,

Thanks for the response. Your post is quite lengthy. Perhaps next time you could break up your posts by subject or by who you are responding to. Just a suggestion, not a command. It can make it easier to read and respond to.

Regarding the false gospel/false teacher issue, you said:

“The Apostle Paul pronounced anathema, the curse of God, upon Judaizers who were troubling and misleading new believers in Galatia (Galatians 1:8-9 ).”

Yes he did, but he did not specifically say that these Judaizers were false teachers. I see a difference, in that Hodges, Wilkin, et al. teach a false gospel but sincerely believe that they are correct. I see a false teacher as someone who knowingly deceives people (especially Christians) and deliberately tries to lead them away from the truth. Wilkin has said more than once that people who do not agree with him about the gospel have a “different gospel”. He says however that the curse of Gal. 1 is not eternal, but temporal, and basically it would be lifted if the person with the “false” gospel changed their minds and began teaching the “true” gospel. Of course he may not be correct about that, and I haven’t done a study of the curse in Gal. 1 . But I could certainly see where, if someone began teaching the “true” gospel, then how could they continue to be accursed? Regardless, Paul does not label these people “false teachers”, but merely that they have a “different gospel” (which of course is still not good, but better than “false teachers”).

You also said:

“On top of all this the Scriptures directly command us to ‘contend’ earnestly for the faith (Jude 3 ) as Lou pointed out. The word ‘contend suggests a struggle, a conflict, a need to accept and even promote disunity.”

I agree with this, and that is why I am willing to accept and promote a disunity from those who would teach a different gospel, in whatever form.

Next, you said:

“I am convinced from my study of the scriptures alone and not from the writings of men that I am correct. How about you?”

I am convinced from both my own study and the writings of men. All men are fallible, but I think it is error to study the Bible and attempt to draw conclusions in a vacuum. God has given men wisdom, and they in turn have shared their wisdom in their writings and speech. Again though, all men are fallible, so it takes discernment to recognize truth from falsehoods. But that does not mean we should not use any human writings to help us in our journey simply because they might have some error. Perhaps someone will make points I hadn’t thought of. Or maybe someone will make points that I can answer, thus sharpening me and deepening my convictions. I do not see the value in being convinced of any spiritual truth by studying the Bible “alone” and not consulting anyone.

Regarding my comment that “there is no other biblical option”, as well as your further question about our church, I prefer not to discuss any more details about that publicly.

You asked,

“One other question, have you any training in bible study/hermeneutics?”

I don’t have a lot of formal training, no. I hold a B.S. from a 4-year Bible college (Calvary Bible College & Theological Seminary, my degree is from the college), which required a major in Bible/Theology for everyone in addition to whatever specific major you declared (mine is Elementary Eduation). Part of the requirements included Hermeneutics I and Hermeneutics II. I graduated with honors, including almost all A’s in all my Bible and Theology classes. I was considered by the professors to be in the top 5-10 students of each class. I have read books on how to interpret the Bible, including Howard Hendricks’ classic. I have spent many months debating atheists and skeptics online over a variety of issues. As a result, I have read mountains of information on defending the Bible, which obviously necessitates much attention to accurate interpretation. I don’t know Greek or Hebrew, and I’ve never had a seminary course. But I do feel that I have a pretty good handle on how to read, interpret, and understand the Bible in its proper contexts. And if I don’t know the answer, I’m usually able to find it.

As far as my “spirit of truth” comment, I was not referring to any biblical passage. As I said in my last post, all I meant by that phrase was to contrast a “spirit of truth” with a “mean spirit” of vindictiveness and/or a spirit of unity at the expense of truth. I was only saying that I want our church’s position to be clear, not because I want to be mean but because I want to express truth. That’s all I meant by the phrase “spirit of truth”. A synonym could be “attitude of truth”. I hope that has helped you understand what I was trying to say.

Regarding the “exegetical proof” of my position, I am still organizing my thoughts. I will get back to you on that.
Jim on 03 Nov 2007 at 10:05 pm #

Lou/Rachel,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posts. Also please accept my apologies for the length. In the future I will try to break them up into individual responses. I will be back to post when I have time.
lmartuneac on 03 Nov 2007 at 10:09 pm #

Jim:

In this thread and in one other document you have elaborated on your military background. That makes twice in recent days I have seen you detail your military experience.

My father was a Ranger in WWII. He fought the Nazis in Italy and was wounded twice in battle. He was part of a team that required he and his team to ski through the mountains on missions behind enemy lines.

Other than his showing my little brother I some pictures from his post war time in Europe I have little recollection of his mentioning his years as the Rangers. He never spoke about the fighting, with one exception, near the end of his life. He had a sudden confrontation with a Nazi officer and at least one enlisted man. What took place still troubled him.

His wounds did not kill him, but the extreme winter conditions he was exposed to in the mountains did their work and it was the results of his exposure to the elements that ultimately finished him.

I had an uncle who, not until after his death a few years ago did I learn that he, was a decorated combat veteran. Among his awards was the Silver Star for a role he played in a desperate battle in the European theatre. After his funeral I was told that had all of the officers not been killed in that battle he very likely would have won the Congressional Medal. I am not real familiar with how this woks, but someone told me the Congressional Medal could not be given to him because there were no officers (left alive) to verify his valor in action. That is why he was awarded the Silver Star and something else that I don’t remember. My uncle never spoke of it.

Here is my point: My dad and uncle were combat veterans in a desperate struggle. They both saw action. Over all the years of their lives I cannot remember them saying as much about their military experience combined than you have written about your military background in just two documents.

Frankly, your repetition does not make me appreciate your service on behalf of our nation any less. It does, however, give me a greater appreciation for my father and uncle’s service under fire in extreme conditions, but especially for their humility following active duty.

LM
lmartuneac on 04 Nov 2007 at 8:04 am #

Jim:

You seem to have a great deal of interest in debates and sharing so much of your knowledge about debates I have suggestion for you to consider.

As you are aware Bob Wilkin have been calling for a debate on the theology of the “Crossless” gospel, for most of the summer. Pastors Rokser and Stegall gave their reasons for declining. Bob and some GES supporters, however, would not let it go.

Finally Ron Shea accepted the challenge to debate Bob in a public venue. Inexplicably, Bob lost his taste for the debate once he had Ron accepting his (Bob’s) challenge. Of course, Bob posted his reply with some private e-mail in that reply, and suddenly, without explanation pulled the public rejection to debate Ron within two hours.

Here are the three articles from my blog where you can refresh your memory of the debate that Bob had been agitating for, but suddenly pulled out of once Ron accepted the challenge. and Bob’s refusal to meet him and sudden deletion of that public refusal is referred to.

http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/search/label/Open%20Challenge

Since you are so eager to engage in debate issues I am asking you if you might be willing to take Bob’s place and meet Ron Shea in an open public debate. Are you willing to represent the “Crossless” gospel position and take Bob’s place?

LM
lmartuneac on 04 Nov 2007 at 8:40 am #

Jim:

This was most of Ron’s accpetance of Bob’s challenge to debate the issue.

PROPOSED TERMS
I propose that the topic being addressed is directed specifically to:
“In the present dispensation, what is the content of saving faith?” and/or
“In the present dispensation, is a belief in Jesus’ divinity, His atoning death, and/or His resurrection necessary for faith in Jesus to constitute saving faith?”

PROPOSED FORMAT
Referring to the opposing sides as #1 and #2, I would propose a general format of:

Affirmative statement no. 1: 15-20 minutes
Affirmative statement no. 2: 15-20 minutes

Cross examination no. 1: 3-5 minutes
Cross examination no. 2: 3-5 minutes

Rehabilitation no. 1: (from cross exam) 5-8 minutes
Rehabilitation no. 2: 5-8 minutes

Summary 1: 5-10 minutes
Summary 2: 5-10 minutes

Arrangements must be made in advance for audio and video recording of the debate.

I am amenable to changing the above format to one which is deemed most appealing to the listening audience, both in terms of structure and time. I will fly to any venue in the United States to conduct this debate.
Jim on 04 Nov 2007 at 8:45 am #

Lou, you wote on 03 Nov 2007 at 10:06 am:

“Your post is so long, it not going to be feasible for me to sort through all of it in a timely manner. I will touch on just a few items and very briefly.”

My apologies again, but I thought you would respond to my questions and points. Are you now saying that you are not willing to interact over them? I would prefer that you show the same respect to me as I have shown you by thoughtfully taking my time to respond to your post. In speaking to Lordship or other divisive people this is usually a tactic to avoid the issues either because you have no proof or are unwilling to bring it to the table for scrutiny.

And again in reference to “Roman 16:17 applies perfectly to the issue, and in the Free Grace (FG) community. IMO, it does not matter if the “contrary” doctrine originates from or is introduced into a church.”

In this passage which Paul was writing to a church he was laying out principles against those who are bent on dividing the church. I also made the point that you are making assertions you can’t back up. This is a perfect example of one. Are you personally aware of me dividing a church? Again, you know nothing about me or my ministry. In debate this is called using hearsay. The debater cites something he heard or read but has not confirmed through his own personal observation or research from reliable sources. It is also disturbing that you use that verse against me out of context, I included the context for you so you would understand how offensive it is to me. Do you know if I serve my own “appetites?” Do I use “…smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of the naïve?” If you’re going to use a biblical argument to say I am like this at least do me the justice of not pulling verses out of context. It is a terrible thing in cyberspace when someone does this, within the church there is accountability. Who is holding you accountable if you’re the one in error? In this case you have made a false accusation about me.
Again you err, “By entering this blog in what appears to be doctrinal agreement with and support of the men who take the “Crossless Gospel” position, you have identified yourself as an apologist for that position. It is not my desire or intent to include you among the men who propagate the “Crossless Gospel” if you reject this teaching that Zane Hodges has introduced into the FG community and some churches that count themselves as among the FG movement. Should I consider you in agreement with the teaching of Zane Hodges on the Gospel? Please advise so that I can reference you fairly and accurately. Thanks!”
I am amazed at your lack of perception of my position! I am an FGA member and am defending my own position and have asked you questions and am still waiting on an answer. As for Zane and Bob “and others” as you have pointed out, I let men speak for themselves. Also you have contradicted yourself by asking me if I think Antonio is wrong for publishing the conversation with Charlie Bing. If that is not apparent then we have a larger problem. As to quoting Dr Bing, you again seem to be avoiding the issues I have raised. What does it matter for Antonio to quote him? Are you now claiming an ethics violation? Please be clear, as I would need to know what ethical rule I am violating. And I thought this had to do with the gospel? By the way Dr. Hixon gave me permission to use his material. I have spoken to Dr Bing on several occasions, this past week as a matter of fact. I’ll give him an email tomorrow to see if he doesn’t mind me using it to support my position. How’s that? Oh, and I also think that you’re probably going to have to include many more of the FGA members to your list of Crossless Gospel advocates list. If read properly the FGA covenant there is a section about trusting Christ alone for eternal life based on the cross and resurrection.

You then make several condescending remarks about my “debates with the proponents of Lordship Salvation.” I guess I’m just a nobody then, right? Sorry, I’m laughing at your post! Please define for me what a “significant contribution” to that debate is and what does it have to do with a crossless gospel? I’m looking at the pulpit magazine blog where you posted after a review of your book.

Since you wanted to bring it up, here is a Lordship Salvationist’s appraisal of your book dealing on repentance:

“Lou is trying to defend middle ground that doesn’t exist. Either repentance is a change of heart (the lordship view) or it is not. The law of the excluded middle leaves no room for Lou’s attempt at theological funambulism.”

So am I not correct in assuming that you’re a Lordship Salvationist? They seem to think so:

“So here’s the bottom line… (which surprised me as much as anyone) After reading his book, I am convinced that Lou Martuneac is, in actuality, a proponent of Lordship Salvation.”
Actually I am having fun reading the Pulpit posts again. If this is the contribution you’re speaking of, then your right, I have not made a significant contribution! Also, if a shepherd guarding sheep against LS people who come into a church and try to divide it is not a significant contribution, then I don’t know what is.
As for my quote of your post dealing with “Jim Johnson from Rocky Mt. Bible College is antithetical to Scripture.”, it was word for word. You go on to say,

“I trust you would not deliberately misquote or twist a quote out of shape to score political points or discredit a man you have a doctrinal disagreement with. I also assume that you would not want to turn what is an important doctrinal discussion into a personality clash. You don’t want to give that impression, do you Jim? The way you used that quote, however, could be taken to give that impression. I trust you would be seriously concerned if you had have mistakenly done this; wouldn’t you?”

I don’t believe that I have twisted anything, and I am not a politician. If I have done this show it, don’t try to hide behind questions like this. As to wanting to discredit you, yes that would be true. I will make no apologies for that, you are in the public and your debating people and saying things that are not true. You go on to make the assertion about a personality clash, rather than answering my questions. Forgive my directness, but are you crying “foul”? You seem to be avoiding my pointing out that you not only said that I but also the college and seminary (who the president is a friend and my mentor and a board member of the FGA) I am a part of is antithetical. So you will answer my questions, right? Am I antithetical?

Also this is another tactic that a debater who is losing an argument tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating. I think this also applies to your comment on whether I made a significant contribution to the Lordship Salvation issue. So no, I am not mistaken about what I have written, again please answer my questions.
And again, “If you read again that paragraph I think you would agree that my remarks were referenced specifically and exclusively to the theology of the “Crossless Gospel.” You do see that don’t you?”

No, I don’t agree, you specifically made an accusation directly against me and my college and seminary and by extension the FGA. And since this is the last point in your post, here’s another problem with how you’re responding, you claim that my theology is “Crossless”. Its not, in fact that you’re using a slogan like “Crossless Gospel” rather than using facts or logic to prove your point. Slogans are vague sentences or phrases that derive their power from rhetorical devices like alliteration, repetition, cadence, or rhyming. I have been back and forth with Lordship advocates and it is always the same, when evidence is presented it is either ignored or ridiculed. I have now answered just about every question you have posed, which seem to me to be straying from the crossless gospel you calim against me. How about you stick to the issues and answer my questions?

Also, I have one other question to add – I see you have an MA, what institution did you receive it from? I am looking on the back cover of your book and it doesn’t say.
Jim on 04 Nov 2007 at 8:48 am #

Lou you write on on 03 Nov 2007 at 10:09 pm,

Once again your not answering my questions, and if you want to speak condescendingly of me in regard to my service to this country – I served to give you that right. In fact it shows the weakness of your position that you will not engage in the debate.
Jim on 04 Nov 2007 at 9:02 am #

Lou you again wrote on 04 Nov 2007 at 8:04 am and on 04 Nov 2007 at 8:40 am.

I find it heard to believe that you have time to disparage my character, my college and seminary, and my military service and no time to answer my questions. So now you have to have Ron Shea answer my questions? This is typical of anyone who can’t back up what they are saying with biblical answers. It is also typical of those who are Lordship in their theology that they can’t stand exegetical evidence contrary to their views.

My son, took debate in High School and I wanted to check with him what they call the position someone takes in a debate who will not engage to answer the questions put to them, his answer was telling, “losing.”

Instead of being intellectually honest you have done everything you can to avoid answering my questions and if you make enough attacks, and ask enough irrelevant questions, you may never have to actually define your position on the topics I have asked you about.

Since you have ignored my questions and it seems to me useless to continue, I will respond to you again, when you do answer my questions. Till then I won’t waste you time or mine.
Jim on 04 Nov 2007 at 9:03 am #

Rachel,

Thanks again for reading and responding fully to my post, even if it takes more than one response. I am honored that your willing to interact over the word of God and will do my best to break it up for you in the future.

Thank you also for sharing your academic achievements with me, it helps to know that if I speak technically you won’t be intimidated (which would not be my intent anyway). I actually taught the long version of Living by the Book in one of the churches I attended before going to seminary. As a instructor it is always a joy to have a student who excels.

And I am clear now on your desire to express the truth, this is my goal also. Forgive me if I take things very literally in regards to the scripture.

In regards to exegetical work, if you do not have a grasp of the original languages it will be somewhat hard to provide an assessment of a given text. For now, how about the summary I provided on John 6:47 , could you interact with me over it in English?
Jim on 04 Nov 2007 at 9:46 am #

Jonathan,

I just finished reading your paper “Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior” and throughly enjoyed it. I have to head out to Church and have to make this quick. I have been doing an Old Testament study of salvation (some of it is on my blog) and as soon as I get it into some form that a person can read, I wonder if you would take a look at it.

Grace and Peace.
lmartuneac on 04 Nov 2007 at 12:07 pm #

Jim:

If I may, I want to return to your mentioning that you have debated the Lordship Salvation proponents.

I recall reading that you were aware of and watching my debate and discussions on Lordship Salvation at the Pulpit Magazine blog. I was invited, via e-mail, by Nathan Busenitz (John MacArthur’s personal assistant) to interact with him over the Lordship interpretation of the Gospel. He invited me to do so, because the Grace to You ministry (John MacArthur) had become aware of my book In Defense of the Gospel, and that it had made an impact in the across a broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity.

During those weeks of debate I recall wondering why there were essentially no men from the GES camp taking advantage of the opportunity to join in the debate. I’m sure you recall that the advocates of LS were out in force.

After I read you long post above, I wondered why you did not take advantage of the opportunity to engage the LS proponents in open debate at Pulpit Magazine while it was unfolding.

Until you took the time to detail your academic training, gifts and abilities I had no idea that you possessed such a high level of academic excellence, and that you are a thoroughly trained, accomplished debater.

It is a shame that you did not take the direct approach and join the discussions that I was engaged in with Nathan and the LS proponents.

A man with the skills and abilities that you detailed about yourself would have been a welcome and helpful addition to the discussion. You might have been able to make a contribution to help resist the spread of Lordship Salvation. We’ll never know.

I am hopeful that the next time you have such an opportunity you will come off the bench and take the direct approach. If you had done so last year, you quite possibly could have made your first significant, meaningful contribution to the LS debates.

Would you please pray about and consider joining the debate with the LS proponents should the opportunity arise again?

Thanks,

LM
lmartuneac on 04 Nov 2007 at 4:18 pm #

Jim:

The M.A. is from Pensacola Christian College.

LM
lmartuneac on 04 Nov 2007 at 4:32 pm #

Jim:

Your claiming I did not answer any questions confuses me. I just reviewed your very long post above (11/3, 6:29am). I find only one question directed to me. You asked me, “How am I (Jim) ‘antithetical’ to scripture, all scripture?”

I answered that question. You were confused and misinterpreted the statement. I’m sorry to see that you are still confused.

The other thing that confuses me is that you express frustration over my allegedly not answering questions, but at the same time, you have no problem with Jeremy not answering one of the most basic questions possible. His claims of being undecided about what the Gospel is in the dispensation, I would have hoped, been of some concern to you.

Why do you give Jeremy a pass when he refuses to answer the one question he has been asked by several in this and other blogs? Why the duplicity?

LM
lmartuneac on 04 Nov 2007 at 10:13 pm #

Following is a brief excerpt from an article by Pastor Tom Stegall. I post this here for the casual reader. This way he/she can get a small idea of why the label “Crossless Gospel is an accurate portrayal of the interpretation of the Gospel coming from Hodges, Wilkin, Meyers, Niemela, da Rosa and Johnson.

According to their view (Hodges/Wilkin/GES), must a person today believe that Jesus Christ died for his sins in order to be justified and born again? Their answer to this question is emphatically, “No!” Hodges states unequivocally,

“People are not saved by believing that Jesus died on the cross; they are saved by believing in Jesus for eternal life, or eternal salvation.”6 And again, “The simple truth is that Jesus can be believed for eternal salvation apart from any detailed knowledge of what He did to provide it.”2

Could their gospel be any clearer? While they teach that lost sinners must believe “the gospel” to receive eternal life, they also teach God does not require lost sinners to believe or even know that “Jesus died on the cross.” That, dear reader, is a “crossless gospel” no matter how you slice it!

And while some may protest that theological liberals who don’t interpret the Bible literally are the only ones preaching a crossless gospel these days, the fact remains that a growing number of Free Grace advocates are as well. This is the tremendous tragedy and irony of today’s new Free Grace gospel.

1 Zane C. Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Pt. 2 ,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 14 (Spring 2001): 10 (bold added).

2 Ibid., 12.
lmartuneac on 04 Nov 2007 at 11:04 pm #

Jim:

You wrote, “I am an FGA member and am defending my own position… As for Zane and Bob ‘and others’ as you have pointed out, I let men speak for themselves.”

Many of us have read Hodges and Wilkin speaking fopr themselves. It is obvious they are advocates of the rightly named “Crossless Gospel.” Of course, Hodges is he originator of this new interpretation of the Gospel.

Defending your own position? Is your position on what is necessary for a man to be born again different than what Hodges and Wilkin are teaching? If you do not accept their interpretation of the Gospel please say so immediately. If you believe that in this dispensation the lost must believe in the death and resurrection of Christ for salvation then say so plainly.

If you can atest to that biblical (orthodox) position on the Gospel I would happily acknowledge I misunderstood what you believe the Gospel is. It would be wrong for any of us to conclude you are in agreement with Hodges’ “Crossless Gospel if in fact you are not.

Do you categorically reject the “Crossless Gospel” teaching of Hodges, such as his stating that, the lost man can be saved apart from any knowledge or belief in what Jesus did to provide salvation?

LM
lmartuneac on 04 Nov 2007 at 11:53 pm #

Jim:

You wrote, “My son, took debate in High School and I wanted to check with him what they call the position someone takes in a debate who will not engage to answer the questions put to them, his answer was telling, ‘losing’.”

I’m not sure if or why you direct that to me because I still don’t see what questions you have put to me.

I fully understand if you would make the application to Jeremy Myers because he has evaded the theme question at this blog for many days. However, “losing” may not be fair in his case, because he has repeatedly stated he does not know whether or not a lost man must believe in the death and resurrection of Christ for the reception of eternal life.

Jeremy disqualified himself from inclusion in any further discussion of what, in this dispensation, a lost man must believe in order to be born again. His claim to be “undecided” indicates he does not know precisely what the saving message is.

The question making the rounds at this blog is: Must a lost man, in this dispensation, believe in the death and resurrection of Christ to be saved, born again? I answer with a clear, emphatic, “Yes!”

I don’t recall if you have answered that question in a clear, non-evasive manner. Have you answered this blog administrator’s question?

IMO, since Jeremy has refused to answer this simple, unambiguous question, your son’s assesment of a “losing position” may certainly apply to Jeremy. Would’nt you agree?

In any event, until such time that Jeremy can determine from his own study what he finally believes the saving message is, in this dispensation, and give a clear, unvarnishd answer, we’ll have to sit tight; won’t we?

By the way, and this is to you Jeremy, since you do not know precisely what the saving message is in this dispensation: how can you lead someone to a saving faith in Christ?

LM
lmartuneac on 05 Nov 2007 at 6:15 pm #

Jim:

You wrote, “I have spoken to Dr Bing on several occasions, this past week as a matter of fact. I’ll give him an email tomorrow to see if he doesn’t mind me using it to support my position. How’s that?”

That will be fine Jim. I have not seen where you have mentioned whether or not Dr. Bing gave you permission to use his materials to support yuor position.

You will of course let us know, one way or the other, if you were given permission from Dr. Bing to use his comments and/or e-mails to support your position.

You wrote this, “What does it matter for Antonio to quote him? Are you now claiming an ethics violation? Please be clear, as I would need to know what ethical rule I am violating..”

Wow, how did you get confused on this one? No objective reader would conclude that I called your ethics into question. You must have become confused again, like you did about the “antithetical to Scripture” issue.

Anyone unbiased person can see that I referenced Antonio using remarks from a phone call with Dr. Bing. Had Antonio published those comments without prior permission that would be not only inappropriate, but unethical, wouldn’t you agree?

LM
jonperreault on 05 Nov 2007 at 9:55 pm #

Hi Jim,

I just noticed your comment to me while reading through the list above! You said:

“Jonathan,

I just finished reading your paper “Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior” and throughly enjoyed it. I have to head out to Church and have to make this quick. I have been doing an Old Testament study of salvation (some of it is on my blog) and as soon as I get it into some form that a person can read, I wonder if you would take a look at it.

Grace and Peace.”

Sounds great Jim. I enjoy reading theological works. You can email it to me at jonperreault@hotmail.com

Blessings
jonperreault on 05 Nov 2007 at 9:58 pm #

Rachel,

My pastor Jason Holm went to Calvary Bible College! I’ve heard it’s alot like Moody Bible Institute. I’ve heard it’s a good school.

Blessings
jonperreault on 05 Nov 2007 at 10:16 pm #

Jim,

I know I saw a link to a website of yours but can’t seem to find it now in all the comments above. Could you give that to me again? Thanks!
lmartuneac on 06 Nov 2007 at 9:34 am #

Jon:

Has Antonio posted your paper at his blog?

LM
jonperreault on 06 Nov 2007 at 12:15 pm #

Lou,

Antonio hasn’t mentioned my paper on his blog that I know of. I did email him the PDF file this past weekend. It’s my opinion that he’s probably reading through it now.

Blessings
lmartuneac on 06 Nov 2007 at 12:42 pm #

Jon:

Let me know if he posts it.

LM
jonperreault on 06 Nov 2007 at 4:35 pm #

Jim,

I am looking forward to reading your Old Testament study on salvation. In his book, “The Wonders of Worship”, OT scholar Dr. Ronald Allen has a section titled “The ‘Hebrew Gospel’”. He writes, “The question naturally arises, What was the content of saving faith in the times of the people who lived before the Cross?” For exegetical reasons, he sees Genesis 15:6 and Exodus 14:30-31 as key texts in answering this question. I am wondering if you have found this to be the case in your studies on the subject?
jonperreault on 06 Nov 2007 at 4:36 pm #

Greg,

Thanks for your comments regarding my paper and your insights from 1 John. That is very interesting!
Jim on 06 Nov 2007 at 8:57 pm #

Jon,

Appologies again, too many hours at work and then in the doctors office. Getting old stinks! I can’t wait for my resurrection body!

Here I have posted some of the initial thoughts on one of my blogs:

http://freegracegospel.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/the-concept-of-messiah-in-the-old-testament/

The other is where I post the notes from my preaching engagements (when I get time to post them that is!)

And my website it here:

http://www.freegracegospel.org/

Also, I happen to like Dr. Allen, one of the best Old Testament Scholars around. I’ll take a look at the book. Also he wrote a response to the reformed view of salvation in section IV, Salvation and the Testaments in the book: S. Lewis Johnson and John S. Feinberg, Continuity and Discontinuity : Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments : Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1988).

The section I am referring to is chapter 6, The biblical method of salvation: A Case for Continuity by Fred H. Klooster, Calvin Theological Seminary and chapter 7. The biblical method of salvation: A Case for Discontinuity, Allen P. Ross, Dallas Theological Seminary

Of course I would side with Dr Ross on the case for discontinuity. His point about revelation being progressive is important to our discussion.

More thoughts on this later.
Jim on 06 Nov 2007 at 9:01 pm #

Lou,

I’m actually enjoying reading your posts. Although I would say you seem to have a lot of time to post multiple times to me. Unfortunately, I don’t have that kind of time. As you seem to ignore what I have asked for but continue to side slip the issues, I will continue to post here and answer your “points” when I have time.

More about your posts later.
lmartuneac on 08 Nov 2007 at 1:34 pm #

Hi Rachel:

I saw how da Rosa has been behaving here and at his blog in regard to Stephen and now you. He is following his usual pattern. You are wise to stay off da Rosa’s blog. Participation there only fuels him for more vitriol and misbehavior.

Jeremy wrote this under your note at da Rosa’s blog, “Another thing I find most troubling about this ‘debate’ is that while we keep calling for the discussion to be centered on Scripture, the other side seems content to discuss everything BUT Scripture.”

That is a demonstrably false statement. Jeremy is not being honest.

1) I have nearly completed listening to the FGA panel discussion. Jeremy, who was on the panel (thus far) never opened a Bible. He kept reverting back to their false paradigms and GES mantra. Furthermore, he kept his remarks focused NOT on what the lost man must believe, which was the subject of the question, but ONLY on what they present in an evangelistic setting.

We have seen why they shy away from what a lost man must believe. We saw how Jeremy was dodging your question here. We saw da Rosa twisting your husband’s words. When the focus is on what a lost man must believe Jeremy and “Crossless” advocates have their teaching shattered and that is why they dodge that area.

At the FGA panel discussion Tom Stegall encouraged those in attendance to open their Bibles and follow him as he expounded his position from the Bible. Ps. Stegall shattered the teaching of the “Crossless” gospel. Jeremy had no answer to Tom’s Scriptural answers to the panel question under discussion.

2) Here are links to articles at my site that Greg wrote. You will find that he centers his discussion on Scripture. Greg, through the Scriptures, irrefutably proves that Hodges has mishandled the Bible, and only through assumption after assumption strips Jesus’ Deity from his titles. He also uses Jeremy’s own comments and from them shows how far askew from orthodoxy he (Jeremy) has drifted because of his adopting the position on Christ’s titles that originated with Hodges.

http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/09/christ-under-siege-new-assault-from.html

The first one above Greg dismantled Jeremy’s position on “the Christ.” By this time, Jeremy had already ducked out of the Deity of Christ discussion with Greg at my blog. In the article Greg wrote, “Does Myers not realize his argument is self-refuting? If we cannot identify an essential concept of ‘the Christ’ that is different from Cyrus, high priests, prophets, and patriarchs, then neither could we accept the GES definition of ‘the Christ’.”

http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/09/christ-under-siege_10.html

In this one Greg shows how Hodges mishandled the Bible and built his case for non-Deity “Christ and “Son of God” titles only on assumption after assumption.

The true beliefs of the “Crossless” gospel have been flushed out and they don’t like it. This is why you see them dodging questions, deleting and twisting comments. Jeremy’s comment today at da Rosa’s blog is patently untrue and he knows it.

From the Scriptures Greg and Tom have exposed and refuted the teaching of the “Crossless” gospel. Jeremy, Hodges, Wilkin and da Rosa have no answer other than to revert back to the GES mantra, which at one time kept unsuspecting Christians at bay and unfortunately some were deceived.

In recent months, however, those tactics have lost their charm primarily from the excellent work that Tom Stegall has done in this area. His articles at the Grace Family Journal have been instrumental in exposing the false teaching of the “Crossless” gospel and I for one am grateful for it.

LM
jonperreault on 08 Nov 2007 at 2:35 pm #

Lou,

Thank you. You raise some valid questions. Why doesn’t Jeremy interact with the interpretations Greg and Tom have taken on key Scripture passages? I for one have not seen him do this. (Jeremy, if I am wrong please direct me to where you have done this.) Furthermore, as of yet Antionio has not done this with my paper (see my comments to him about this on his latest blog post). I see this as a glaring inconsistency on their part that needs to be addressed.

Jonathan
Rachel on 08 Nov 2007 at 2:44 pm #

Jonathan,

That is cool that your pastor is Jason Holm! He was a senior when I was a freshman, so we didn’t know each other very well (and by then he lived off campus, so I rarely even saw him). But he seemed to have significant respect from all the professors, so I’m sure he is doing a great job at your church. Calvary is a very good school, I learned much there. I think it is even better now, as I have watched them make large improvements over the last 5 years or so.

Thanks for sharing that, how ironic.
lmartuneac on 08 Nov 2007 at 5:02 pm #

Jon:

I think by this time we know beyond any reasonable doubt that Jeremy is not interested in interacting with any persons who have his/their doctrinal number.

I read your post to Antonio. Only Antonio knows if he will honor his commitment to you.

LM
Jim on 08 Nov 2007 at 10:02 pm #

Lou, you wrote on 04 Nov 2007 at 12:07, in regard to my watching and not commenting on the Lordship debate, since I believe that Lordship Salvation is false teaching, the words of Paul come to mind,

Remind people [the believers of Ephesus] of these things and solemnly charge them before the Lord not to wrangle over words. This is of no benefit; it just brings ruin on those who listen. [I have had with the other elders in the church treat divisive person(s) as unbelievers] Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately. But avoid profane chatter, [the false teachers of Ephesus were considered by Paul to be doing this] because those occupied with it will stray further and further into ungodliness, and their message will spread its infection like gangrene. [Hence the need to discipline teachers who are in error in the church quickly] Hymenaeus and Philetus are in this group. They have strayed from the truth by saying that the resurrection has already occurred, [and example of error] and they are undermining some people’s faith. 2 Timothy 2:14-18

Continuing Paul’s theme, there is instruction to Timothy on what to do with controversies,

But reject foolish and ignorant controversies, because you know they breed infighting. And the Lord’s slave must not engage in heated disputes but be kind toward all, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance and then knowledge of the truth and they will come to their senses and escape the devil’s trap where they are held captive to do his will. 2 Timothy 2:23-26

Timothy needed to refuse to participate in unwise and immature debates since these generate arguments that prove divisive. Paul had said this once before to him,

But the aim of our instruction is love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith. Some have strayed from these and turned away to empty discussion. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not understand what they are saying or the things they insist on so confidently. 1 Timothy 1:5-7

In other words Paul was saying to Timothy, “Such questions will be brought before you: refuse to discuss them.” Those who participate in this activity are according to the Greek word ignorant (apaideutous). This same Greek word can be translated undisciplined, uneducated, or rude. Such behavior is inappropriate for any servant of the Lord. He or she must promote peace and unity among believers. The emphasis in the word translated “able to teach” in the Greek (didaktikos, See 1 Timothy 3:2 and the qualification of elders) is on the teacher’s ability to bring out the best in his students rather than on his knowledge.
Sadly, this is what happened then and is happening now, and if I had one gift granted to me before I pass from this life it would be to eliminate this divisiveness. As one pastor told me this debate has “been framed in such spectacularly poor terms,” and urged on more “by arrogance than gentlemanly theological discussion among like-minded believers, who love one another.” Having said this, I don’t think you’re in the free grace camp, in fact I think you tried to straddle the fence and fell off on the other side. Repentance being the deciding factor here. As someone who has studied the issues carefully for 6 years, and had to deal with the division that Lordship and other aberrant non-biblical views cause in the local church, your also book strikes me as not a free grace view. It seems to be some awkward hybrid of the two with plenty of quotes of other men’s writings. I didn’t find any real exegetical material in it other quoting other men and Thayer’s lexicon here and there; it seems that you have not even used the best scholarship available from a lexical standpoint.

As to my not taking the direct approach to involve myself in the Lordship “debate”; if ministry within the local church, which is where I am called and qualified as an under shepherd following the Chief Shepherd to defeat false teaching and to teach patiently those who are teachable doesn’t fit your definition of “significant”, then you and I are not reading the same bible. I don’t engage in useless “contributions” to a debate that is biblically already decided. But you did not comment on Nathan’s opinion of your being in their camp instead of ours. Instead you seem to continue to use demeaning language that my “contribution” doesn’t count and that I need to come off the “bench.” Again, as I said if what you’re doing is making a useful “contribution,” I will stay on the “bench.” I will leave the decision of whether my service both to the Lord and to this country has been worthy of the Lord and it is for Him to decide at the Judgment Seat not you.

On 04 Nov 2007 at 4:18 pm, you answered my question on your academic pursuits, thank you. I was curious why you did not enroll in a seminary?

On 04 Nov 2007 at 4:32 pm, you wrote, “Your claiming I did not answer any questions confuses me.”

So here once again is a repetition of my questions so you won’t be confused: I asked, “How am I ‘antithetical’ to scripture, all scripture? Some scripture?”

You did not answer these questions. Instead you continue to use language that borders on the fallacy of Ad Hominem, which is general category of fallacy in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of the opposing position. But really, you are disparaging my character and the organizations to which I belong; is that the way a scholarly debate is waged? It shows me at the very least you can’t back up what you’re saying. For instance, in an earlier post you claim your relative’s military service to “bounce” my own; since you have done this (and after some soul searching) I would ask you the following two questions since you have brought it up. Have you served in the military? Have you taken another human life in battle?

Also, I have not brought this up before either; I have made several arguments against your position and you have ignored these and continued your current course which is to not deal with the issues on this blog. It would be apparent to anyone debating an issue what these were. You go on to say in your post,
“You were confused and misinterpreted the statement. I’m sorry to see that you are still confused.”

I am not confused about that I said, and am not confused about your response. Again, your statements assume you know my mental state, which you are not qualified to do. You made an accusation about me, my school, and the theological position (which is public) I hold, and can’t back it up. You have not understood the implied issues that you should be able to comment on. Also, as I have said before, Jeremy and Antonio are more than able to answer for themselves. You seem to be trying to side step my questions and the issues I have placed before you by questioning my character. That is not going to work.
Again, you wrote on 04 Nov 2007 at 10:13 pm, quoting more of Tom Stegall’s work.

Once again, I would implore you to make your own argument versus reiterating another person’s view instead of defending your own position from the scriptures. It is also apparent something else is very wrong here. I wondered why – apparently to you – it so wrong to allow people to read both sides of an argument, come to theological conclusions for them, opposite having you or I tell them what to think? I have noted you doing this on several occasions. This, as I have pointed out before is another example of divisive behavior that saddens me. Another fellow pastor and I were discussing this (he is ex-vineyard/charismatic/free grace and we still can have fellowship) and he reminded me of the analogy of a church, and by extension the FGA association being a bus. You and I are on different buses. I’m not going to hop on yours and conversely you are not going to hop on mine (unless you have joined the FGA lately). You have the freedom to believe what you will, I’m sure that there are many people who will be swayed by your writings and blogging. I am not one of them. I am unapologetic about my theological convictions, teachable yes, able to change my position based on sounds biblical evidence, yes. In my opinion, you and Tom Stegall have not presented the arguments nor would you fit the qualifications (unless you were to present more these more thoroughly and specifically) of someone who could persuade me.

And on 04 Nov 2007 at 11:04 you wrote,
“Is your position on what is necessary for a man to be born again different than what Hodges and Wilkin are teaching? If you do not accept their interpretation of the Gospel please say so immediately.” If you believe that in this dispensation the lost must believe in the death and resurrection of Christ for salvation then say so plainly.”

Obviously you have not read my position on the website. Also you have not read the affirmation of the FGA covenant on my website. Another quote I would like to respond to,
“If you can atest to that biblical (orthodox) position on the Gospel I would happily acknowledge I misunderstood what you believe the Gospel is.”

I am not orthodox, but biblical, and I find the traditions and teaching of men to be offensive just as the Lord Jesus did. In fact proponents of Orthodox Judaism crucified Him for the Gospel. The next quote and the other one above lead me to believe that you are conducting an inquisition:

“Do you categorically reject the “Crossless Gospel” teaching of Hodges, such as his stating that, the lost man can be saved apart from any knowledge or belief in what Jesus did to provide salvation?”

Before I answer, I would ask you a question. Do you have the some authority or writ from some organization to go around “examining” other believers “orthodoxy?” By what authority do you ask this question?

I would find this whole thing laughable if it were not for the damage done to other believer’s faith by people who want to divide the body of Christ over the writings of men.

And on 04 Nov 2007 at 11:53 pm you wrote again,
“I’m not sure if or why you direct that to me because I still don’t see what questions you have put to me.”

It’s sad that you are blind to the questions I asked before; I have asked them again in this post for you to respond. I have also added more; hopefully you will have time to answer these as well. In fact, after disparaging my character and service to this country, I don’t feel obligated to respond to anything else you put on this blog until you back up these claims with facts.
You claim that people “disqualify” themselves because they don’t bow to your theological position. In other words, you seem to expect people to be a doormat for your views. I believe that is why you were banned by at least two blogs. And no, I don’t agree with you. And again, my position is posted in public for all to see and interact with me personally over.

And you on 05 Nov 2007 at 6:15 pm, about my discussions with Dr. Bing.

To follow up, I did speak to Dr. Bing and he gave me permission to use what ever he has said publicly to be quoted. He is a gracious man and a brother and biblical scholar. (Note I am not quoting him now but praising him as a brother – unless that is off limits here.) His assurance of what he knew of my intent and heart was encouraging.

There are a whole lot of people who are saddened by the tone of this exchange, the lack of proof, and the divisiveness. You may be wondering by now why I and some others are not changing our position or are not being quick to recant our position on the gospel we teach and preach. There is going to be a rebuttal of Tom’s work and by default your support of it. It can’t be completed until he makes the exegetical argument that he has promised to many of us. Speaking of that, many have been wondering about that, normally that would come first to support a premise like the charge that has been laid against the crossless gospel proponents. I also spoke to president of my seminary and a member of the FGA board about publication of a rebuttal of Tom’s articles – just so the argument will not be one sided, I’m sure you understand. It would not be proper to respond to any one person but to the accusation itself. Until that happens I think your claim to an irrefutable position and demands for recantation is a bit premature, wouldn’t you?

And once again, you claim confusion on my part; I am beginning to wonder do you have some Divine power to know what I am thinking? Also, you make the claim about my having a bias, once again an illegitimate argument, so is this what you meant by crying “foul?”

Wow, 4 to 5 posts…I can only get in one. Have a pleasant day, until we blog again or bow low before the Lord Jesus.
lmartuneac on 08 Nov 2007 at 10:59 pm #

Jim:

You wrote, “So here once again is a repetition of my questions so you won’t be confused: I asked, “How am I ‘antithetical’ to scripture, all scripture? Some scripture?”

I stopped reading right there. Until you drop this non-sense, and find some way to be honest in your approach, we have nothing further to discuss.

LM
jonperreault on 08 Nov 2007 at 11:03 pm #

Hi Jim,

In interacting with Lou above you say: “And no, I don’t agree with you. And again, my position is posted in public for all to see and interact with me personally over.” So after reading this I went to your website and clicked on the “Gospel” tab, which directed me to the doctrinal statement of Rocky Mountain Bible College. There I read: “Faith (believe) is a personal response, apart from works, whereby one is persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered him/her from condemnation and guaranteed their everlasting life.” If you believe this, how do you disagree with Lou? This is exactly what Lou is fighting FOR, is it not? Am I misunderstanding something here? Is it your definition of “the finished work of Jesus Christ”? Maybe you define that as something other than the finished crosswork of Jesus Christ (cf. Jn. 19:30 )? Could you please clarify these things for me? Thanks!

Jonathan
lmartuneac on 08 Nov 2007 at 11:09 pm #

Jim:

Each of your posts has exhibited an increasing level of intellectual elitism and snobbery. Here is an example of it from the Another Open Question thread:

“Tom Stegall’s articles fall short of proof required from a exegetical standpoint as I have pointed out. It is unfortunate that this is a technical issue that spans the OT and NT. Tom is a graduate of a church based biblical institute. After looking at what they teach, it is a good layman’s school but no match for someone with a longer history in teaching the languages and exegesis. {meaning yourself} I have been reading and translating Greek for three years now, and have started my first year of Hebrew.”

I am hopeful you will receive the following in the way I intend it to be received. I am going to direct some Scripture to your attention that I hope you will consider and meditate on.

It was in the mid 80’s that I came across a passage of Scripture that helped me in an area of my life and testimony that was not under the control of the Spirit at that time.

“Let another man praise thee and not thine own mouth: a stranger and not thine own lips,” (Prov. 27:2 ).

Also see Proverbs 25:6-7 ; Luke 14:7-11

Whenever I am tempted to “toot” my own horn, the Lord brings these helpful passages to my mind.

Twenty years ago I knew I had a problem in that regard, still have that problem, but these trigger verses, which I memorized; help me to rein it in.

“God resisteth the proud, ” (James 4:6 a).

LM
lmartuneac on 09 Nov 2007 at 3:00 pm #

Jon:

I’m not sure I understand. Is the doctrinal statement of the Rocky Mountain Bible College to be considered Jim’s personal position on the Gospel?

This part, “…persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered him/her from condemnation…” is IMO well stated and is clear that personal belief in the death and resurrection of Christ is necessary for salvation.

Jim, do you take that position? Is belief in the death and resurrection (”finished work of Jesus Christ“) necessary for the reception of eternal life?

Jon/Anyone: Has anyone seen where Jim has answered the theme question at this blog and/or stated his position on the Gospel in regard to what is coming from Hodges and Wilkin?

LM
jonperreault on 09 Nov 2007 at 4:53 pm #

Lou,

You asked me: “I’m not sure I understand. Is the doctrinal statement of the Rocky Mountain Bible College to be considered Jim’s personal position on the Gospel?”

That’s exactly what I’m asking Jim about! Jim has said to you (Lou): “And no, I don’t agree with you. And again, my position is posted in public for all to see and interact with me personally over.”

Why would Jim have a tab on his website called “Gospel” and link to information he disagrees with? I’m just putting two and two together but it seemed from these public statements that Jim is endorsing the doctrinal statement of the RMBC, especially as it pertains to the “Gospel”. So my question to Jim is, does he agree with that doctrinal statement, and if so, how can he say he disagrees with you (Lou).

Lou, you expressed my sentiments when you asked Jim above: “Jim, do you take that position? Is belief in the death and resurrection (”finished work of Jesus Christ“) necessary for the reception of eternal life?”

Lou, you asked: “Jon/Anyone: Has anyone seen where Jim has answered the theme question at this blog and/or stated his position on the Gospel in regard to what is coming from Hodges and Wilkin?” I don’t know that I have seen Jim explicitly answer this blogs question. But it seems from reading his many comments that he tends to agree with Hodges and Wilkin and disagree with you (Lou) and Tom, (and even myself).

Also everyone: Please check out my Free Grace blog as I have a new post that in my opinion is very interesting (and Scriptural)! (www.freegracefreespeech.blogspot.com)
lmartuneac on 09 Nov 2007 at 6:41 pm #

Jon:

I have no explanation for Jim’s apparent contradiction. We are going to have to wait for Jim to give a clear cut answer to the question: Is belief in the death and resurrection (”finished work of Jesus Christ”) necessary for the reception of eternal life?

Since this thread has exceeded 100 posts I want to reiterate a point I made near the beginning.

It is not the presentation of (certain) truths that are the crux of debate as the “Crossless Gospel” advocates would have people believe. The debate is over what a lost man must know, understand or believe for salvation. It is there that these men have departed from the faith once delivered (Jude 3 ).

LM
Jim on 11 Nov 2007 at 10:05 pm #

Jon/Lou/Rachel/Anyone Else who is interested. Not sure what link you were looking at.

Here’s the purpose statement of the ministry:
http://www.freegracegospel.org/overview.htm

Here is my ministry web sites theological position on justification:

http://www.freegracegospel.org/justification.htm

Thanks for discussion.
lmartuneac on 11 Nov 2007 at 11:06 pm #

Jim:

From your web site, “The Precise Definition . . .Saving faith exists when a person believes, trusts, has confidence in the biblical Lord Jesus Christ for eternal life.” 9

Footnote 9
“Sometimes people add the following ‘and His cross and resurrection’, i.e. by being convinced on the evidence a person chooses to place his confidence in the biblical Lord Jesus Christ [God/Man/Savior] and his finished work for salvation [substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection]. While this can cause a person to believe be saved, it is not a belief in facts that cause a unbeliever to gain eternal life.”

I trust I am assuming correctly that you linked us to that statement because it is your personal position on justification.

Correct me if I misunderstand. Your “precise definition” and accompanying footnote indicate that you believe in this dispensation a lost man can be born again apart from believing in the finished work of Christ.

Is that an accurate representation of your position?

LM
lmartuneac on 11 Nov 2007 at 11:13 pm #

Jim:

Now I just read the following from your FG overview link.

“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.”

That statement falls under a heading, I Affirm the Following.

This does not appear to be in agreement with your “precise definition” I referenced above. Which do you affirm?

“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.”

or…

“Saving faith exists when a person believes, trusts, has confidence in the biblical Lord Jesus Christ for eternal life.” 9

Footnote 9 “Sometimes people add the following ‘and His cross and resurrection’, i.e. by being convinced on the evidence a person chooses to place his confidence in the biblical Lord Jesus Christ [God/Man/Savior] and his finished work for salvation [substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection]. While this can cause a person to believe be saved, it is not a belief in facts that cause a unbeliever to gain eternal life.”

LM

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Free Grace Alliance sponsors a panel to discuss the “Crossless” Gospel

111 Responses to “Free Grace Alliance sponsors a panel to discuss the “Crossless” Gospel”

Leave a Reply

Pages

Blogroll