The following link provides Lou Martuneac's hand-written confession of evangelical affiliation:
Free Grace Alliance Membership
You may notice how the doctrine of biblical separation practically speaking takes special consideration in his choice to join free grace theology in a public and official manner. In this next link Martuneac reveals again how dependent he is upon the doctrine of separation from other believers on the premise of theological dispute:
John Piper Discussion at Sharper Iron
Their highly conservative doctrine of biblical separation, at least in my studies thus far, is the defining doctrine of this sect. I can provide a few different writers within what is known as the Independent Fundamental Baptists, but for now this author, a self-proclaimed IFB teacher, explains this characteristic of his sect and how central it is:
The term fundamental has several applications and the word does not mean the same thing to each of the groups you mentioned.[1]
Independent Fundamental Baptist use the term to mean they strictly follow the teaching of the New Testament for their faith and practice. (The Old Testament is inspired of God, but does not contain teachings of polity, practice, faith of the local church) The IFB accept a literal interpretation of the Bible. They practice biblical separation from churches and groups who are in doctrinal error have adopted modern non traditional music and "worship." Most IFB will only use the KJV of the Bible and reject all modern translations. All of these are important to the IFB, but what causes a lot of criticism of us is we practice biblical separation. We believe we should not be unequally yoked with those who do not practice what the Bible says or who are worldly. (See 2 Cor. 6:14) We believe in the autonomy of the local church and reject all forms of hierarchy over it. ... In the true sense of the term only the IFB are true fundamentalists.
The other Baptist groups in your list are more accurately called by the term "conservatives." Most of them do not use the term fundamentalist in referring to themselves and see themselves as less strict in their beliefs and practices. Their doctrinal statements will be mostly the same as IFB, but without the Bible's teaching on biblical separation. They will preach salvation by grace alone the same as the IFB and baptism by immersion.
The extremity of the situation, is explained by the same author in this article:
Today the name Baptist is used by many churches that are not following the teachings of the New Testament. Thus the words "Independent" and "Fundamental" have been added by many Baptist churches to further identify themselves as true Bible believing churches and to show a distinction between themselves and Baptist churches that were not following God's word. Most Baptist churches were in the past founded on the sound doctrinal teachings of the New Testament; however, many of them have in varying degrees drifted away from many of the teachings of the Scriptures. Some of these churches have gone so far to even deny the fundamental teachings of the Bible, such as the deity of Christ, the virgin birth and salvation by the Grace of God, through faith. Others have to a lesser degree compromised the Word of God by their teaching, practices and church polity trying to confront to popular religious tends. These worldly churches still call themselves "Baptists," but in fact they do not believe or practice what true Baptists have historically believed and more importantly what the Word of God says. The true Independent Fundamental Baptists have no association or fellowship with these churches because they teach or practice things contrary to the New Testament.[2]
I am sure there are a variety of opinions within IFB ranks, on how extreme one can take such a quest for disfellowshipping on behalf of doctrinal purity. Abrams seems to suggest that disassociation is appropriate in cases of worship style and on cessation of tongues and similar-caliber deviations of the truth. I assume there must be some individuals of this sect who wish to practice disassociation over much finer matters.
In each of these articles soon to come on the characteristics of the IFBs, I will be providing a "TRANSLATION" in conclusion, for bridging the linguistic gap for those who are so inclined.
TRANSLATION:
When a IFB says "heretics of the first order", what they mean to say is this:
"Our own spiritual devotion to God is found in fidelity to these scriptures. This is important to us, to see others honor the doctrines that we honor. Any failure to do so is tragedy, born only from sin, in our way of believing. Anyone who persists in being unconverted to our doctrines, show a contempt for God that is just unbelievable for us. We cannot understand it, whatsoever. All we can do in the face of such a phenomena, is explain it in terms of sin and the effects of sin."
More, to come.
[1] Cooper Abrams III; Independent Fundamentalist Baptist missionary and pastor, ThB, MBS. From AllExperts.com
[2] Cooper Abrams III; Independent Fundamentalist Baptist missionary and pastor, ThB, MBS. From A Brief Survey of IFB Churches, Sept. 2007.
28 comments:
Michele:
I have to be honest and tell you that I find it difficult to follow whatever it is you are trying to present here.
Allow me to share one definition of a heretic that is given in relation to Titus 3:10. I don’t recall the writer, but I think it was John R. Rice, who I am paraphrasing here:
“The heretic chooses for himself and causes divisions over a Bible truth pressed to an extreme and is out of balance with the whole of Scripture. The heretic gathers others to himself…”
The reductionist assault on the content of saving faith originated by Hodges and perpetuated by Wilkin and the GES people can be easily recognize as a radical departure from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
FYI, I am one of the very few IFB men to publicly take on the Crossless/Deityless gospel. Most IFB men have known Hodges checked out on Scripture years ago. Most of them, however, had little idea just how far from the Scriptures Hodges and Wilkin had departed in recent years. From my blog and other I have advised and warned thousands across a broad cross section of evangelical Christianity about the Crossless heresy coming from the GES.
You might pause to reflect on the fact that many men (outside IFB circles) in the FG community have ceased to fellowship with GES because of their (GES) egregious doctrinal errors. The GES has shrunk to a small cell of theological extremists and I hope that trend continues through recovery of the deceived and protection of the unsuspecting.
I will do what I can to protect the unsuspecting from falling into the trap of the Crossless gospel. That will be through exposing their heresy, presenting truth and identifying the prime instigators of the CG as well as those who seek to support, cooperate with and sympathize with them and their heresies.
To conclude, in his final article The Hydra's Other Head Hodges essentially condemned any man past, present and future who would not accept his reductionist heresy.
His reductionist assault on the content of saving faith, i.e. the Crossless gospel and his final article are his final, sad legacy.
LM
Hi Lou,
I am trying to help myself and perhaps others understand why you say things in the manner you do. The content is not the issue. Even if it were true that those who disagree with you don't own a dime's worth of care for you (but I am sure that is not the case), they are consistently affected by your mannerisms, your words, your choices of interactions in conversations.
It is offensive, and it is painful and I am utterly convinced it is largely unnecessarily so.
I think according to your beliefs, offense and pain are part of the work, and to a point I would heartily agree, but even Pastor Stegall conveyed in his words and tone a notably broken heart over publicly sharing the truth, when he said:
Secondly, I wish to say in closing that I did not want to write this clarification anymore than I wanted to go ahead with publishing my articles in the Grace Family Journal; and yet I felt constrained to do so in order to clarify the truth. It would be tragic if our disagreements over the “crossless” gospel degenerated into personal attacks against each others’ motives and characters, instead of objectively (though still passionately) interacting on a doctrinal and Scriptural level. I do not question the motives of those men who hold to, and teach, what others and I have come to identify as a “crossless” gospel. For that matter, I believe their motives are sincere, as they are sincerely seeking to clarify and defend the gospel of grace. However, someone can still be sincerely wrong.
--from his "Open Letter" published on your web site, August 6, 2007
This is 100% consistent with what he shared with me face to face in October of 2008 when we discussed the manner in which we declare and proclaim and defend the truth. His heart is for the scriptures first and proclaiming reputations comes second; I believe I interpreted him correctly on this but if I am mistaken or a little bit misunderstanding, I hope he will take the opportunity to clarify it.
Nevertheless you don't have to do it as he does it. I have a lot of ideas of small things you could prayerfully consider. If I am naturally offensive or unacceptable (while I will continue to blog them if you drop out of interaction with me on the topic and don't select another), I'm sure there must be someone in your Spiritual support system who could translate and explain and challenge you, if you find such a challenge edifying. Not every suggestion will work, for you I imagine, but a few might.
I think this would be a great way to help minister to those with unnecessary pain they have somehow taken in response to your style. I understand and I would completely believe it if you said that it is a mystery, what pain they have unnecessarily suffered. How would you answer that question; is it in fact a mystery to you? What do you want to do?
I'd like to say with maximum importance that as I go, I learn more of all that I don't really understand. I have made mistakes that have affected others. I just want to be helpful, and anyone more capable can come along and take up this position for me; I know they're out there somewhere and I'd be quite fine.
I appreciate your thoughts,
Michele
Lou,
Did I get any details in the post incorrect? I'd appreciate your corrections if something catches your eye.
It was interesting to learn that you might be the rare IFB in free grace in a public manner.
Take care, Michele
Lou,
As another example of the manner in which heresy or error might alternately be handled, consider another of your contemporaries in defending and promoting the truth of the gospel, FGA president Fred Lybrand:
As one greatly influenced by both Hodges and MacArthur, I find myself in the strange position of loving them, but still disagreeing with both of them on a few things.
How cool to see you express grace and graciousness in a climate too often marked by defiance and harsh judgment.
Thanks for elevating one of my friends, professors, and mentors to a proper level of honor for his character and integrity. Thanks too for displaying the possibility that we all might have a real conversation about issues as we keep the Lord’s kindness to each of us in the forefront.
God bless,
Fred Lybrand
President
The Free Grace Alliance
- Upon the topic of the passing, legacy and teachings of Zane Hodges, written on December 1, 2008 at 1:02 pm, comment #28 at Parchment and Pen: a theology blog
Thanks, Michele
Lou,
Do your beliefs prohibit you from listening to their offense? This is something I am curious to understand. If it is a matter of your beliefs, okay. I release you from this task, though there must be something new that can be done?
I do believe in you, and your good intentions, Lou. I will stand up for you. I appreciate and like you. At this time though I cannot facilitate your messages as they remain nonsubjected to relationships.
I keep you in my prayers always,
Michele
Michele:
In the testimonies you referred at the Parchment and Pen blog: I did appreciate the article and some of the comments.
Did you note how many who commented stated the qualifier that they disagreed with the later teaching of Hodges on soteriology? Even the author of the article twice noted his strong disagreement with Hodges’s views. Those people did have some interaction with Hodges (as students and other wise) in happier, more doctrinally sound days.
These are the folks that are the most grieved at how Hodges drifted far from a biblically balanced view of soteriology. Can you imagine the grief of the men who were taught and blessed by Hodges to watch him slide into deeper forms of reductionist assaults on the Gospel, the necessary content of saving faith?
His last article The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism and his refusal to meet with those who wanted to challenge his thinking of a Crossless & Deityless gospel removed any doubt that he could not be recovered from the heresy had had fallen into and guiding others toward.
ZH was a gifted teacher, but he lost his theological balance. Many in the FG camp had to break from him because of his reductionist assaults on the content of saving faith. Of course they will honor the man in death and appreciate what they could. However, a number of them as you can see for yourself, even in honoring ZH, did take the time to mention their disagreement with his later views. Why?
Because IMO they were grieved over it, disagreed with his soteriology and do not want any one to get the impression that they (the writers) are in agreement with Hodges’s Crossless gospel.
That article was not the place to expand on their disagreements with Hodges’s CG heresy, but disagreement with him was noted often and for good reason.
Hodges had fallen into some of the most extreme reductionist views ever seen in the NT church. His teaching will always be around through the GES (unless it goes under), but there will be many of us who will do all we can to make sure the Crossless gospel remains isolated to within the cell of instigators and deceived in the GES.
LM
Hi Lou,
Thanks for the response. In its beginning you mentioned the phenomena of "qualifiers," which as an aside I think is fascinating for meditating on how you practice your faith. I think a lot of conservative evangelicals like to use qualifiers when talking about others but I don't think they think closely about why. For them, specifying where doctrine turns south, is important. But I imagine that for you it is, like, an act of worship or devotion? I'm just guessing, trying to understand.
You asked:
Did you note how many who commented stated the qualifier...
Yes, I did notice it. That says something important, doesn't it?
You said:
These are the folks that are the most grieved at how Hodges drifted far from a biblically balanced view of soteriology. Can you imagine the grief of the men who were taught and blessed by Hodges to watch him slide into deeper forms of reductionist assaults on the Gospel, the necessary content of saving faith?
Error is offensive. It is offensive to listen to someone, teach it.
You said:
his refusal to meet with those who wanted to challenge his thinking of a Crossless & Deityless gospel removed any doubt that he could not be recovered
You know, I don't move in the circles you do so I can't say that I know that you are correct on this, but, I have heard enough from reliable sources to suggest there is a substance of truth in that. I also know this, though. That those on the crossless side have been bothered by the way in which this has been handled, and you may not be aware of how this offense has been made, but it is there nonetheless.
When you went to Africa to share Christ as you have shared in some places, you went not only prepared with the Word but also prepared to model the will of God in your conduct. This is given; I wish to point out that as you share the truth with your brothers, is this issue of heresy not also a ministry initiated by you in the truth and love of God? So conduct should have an important role in influencing others for the sake of convincing them (or, not actively dissuading them in something like hypocrisy). Do you think of a ministry as two-fold: truth and conduct?
You initiate the ministry for Hodges' sake, just as for those three men in the hut in the dark, in Africa. You do all the pouring-in, and get nothing in return, except you hope they will reply with faith. My hope is that, in the case that those on the crossless side have become frustrated, you can still play that role of minister to that frustration.
People don't listen when they are offended.
The truth does offend, I concede that.... I just suspect that there is some other elements beyond, causing additional offense....
This is why I want to help, because I see how unfortunate it is that no matter how great or important your message is, your ability to be heard has been undeservedly reduced. The opportunity has been largely lost. But, the future can hold anything.
You said:
a number of them as you can see for yourself, even in honoring ZH, did take the time to mention their disagreement with his later views. Why?
Because, error is never okay to sanction! And even they don't confuse honor for him with stating the truth. You're right!
You said:
the later teaching of Hodges on soteriology?
Someone recently said that while Hodges was a prof he concentrated on the doctrine of eternal rewards, and that once he retired he next turned his focus to soteriology. So, ... maybe if he had started with soteriology, and done eternal rewards later on in life, things would be completely different? Just wondering aloud. I doubt the claim of "drift." It sounds like he was an outstanding and unique biblicist, from the get-go.
So would have someone shown him his error with equal grief, over some details of eternal reward, way back when? They should have, don't you think, Lou, I mean according to your beliefs.... Error of any kind is grievous. It's only when he touches the issue of soteriology, that makes people such as yourself rise up. Because the content of the gospel is so important for saving a dying world.
I get it.
If I have said anything in here that is offensive to you, please forgive me, I am trying to figure out how things work.
You said:
ZH was a gifted teacher, but he lost his theological balance. Of course they will honor the man in death and appreciate what they could.
There... that was fantastic, according to my beliefs. Are these kinds of statements, okay, to make for someone such as yourself? Could you... just highlight that and put it in bold speaking metaphorically? This is the kind of thing that will do some good for you, for others.
Michele
Michele:
On my comment: Hodges refusal to meet with those who wanted to challenge his thinking of a Crossless & Deityless gospel removed any doubt that he could not be recovered...
You replied, #1 "You know, I don't move in the circles you do so I can't say that I know that you are correct on this, but, I have heard enough from reliable sources to suggest there is a substance of truth in that."
Good.
You replied, #2 "I also know this, though. That those on the crossless side have been bothered by the way in which this has been handled, and you may not be aware of how this offense has been made, but it is there nonetheless."
What they are bothered by is any scrutiny and open exposure of their reductionist heresies on the content of saving faith. It does not matter if it is George Zeller, Tom Stegall, Me, JB Hixson's brief footnote, they are agitated that their egregious errors have been exposed and biblically refuted.
We look at and quote verbatim what they say/write, compare it to Scripture and the answer is always the same: The Crossless gospel is a radical departure from the necessary content of saving faith.
We will expose and resist their teaching (and their supporters like Rose) every time they try to propagate it beyond their own small cell of GES extremists.
LM
Michele:
You wrote, "Someone recently said that while Hodges was a prof he concentrated on the doctrine of eternal reward, and that once he retired he next turned his focus to soteriology."
Taking the soteriology first: It was his focus on soteriology that gave the church the errors of his reductionist Crossless gospel.
Taking the eternal reward: I have not dug too deeply into this because my main burden is a defense of the Gospel. Nevertheless, my understanding it was Hodges's doctrine of eternal reward that lead to the absurd teaching of a punitive Judgment Seat of Christ and I believe it also lead J. D. Faust's to his absolutely absurd and danger Millennial Exclusion heresy, which Matthew at Unashamed of Grace endorses.
BTW, Matthew posted, I believe two, articles by Faust on the ME at Unashamed. Rose could not even bring herself to rebuke Matthew or pull those articles from her group blog. Is that reasonable?
Anyway, more of the tragic legacy of Zane Hodges.
LM
Lou,
There comes a point where the things you bring out for my benefit, I cannot discuss because I don't know them well enough. I apologize.
The point is not so much these individual items themselves, but that there can be more than one way to filter events, words, and behavior. That's what I make pains to illustrate.
You said:
It does not matter if it is George Zeller, Tom Stegall, Me, JB Hixson's brief footnote, they are agitated that their egregious errors have been exposed and biblically refuted.
Are you sure? What are they upset over? Do you remember asking them and their reply? I wonder, if you asked them and they said something akin to "We are bothered that you use the word heresy in the manner that you do," could you, would you, automatically translate that to mean, "they don't want to be exposed for what they are." You could be right, that they don't like exposure. But you have to take a look at what they are saying and not read into it their secret thoughts or intentions: communication 101. If you don't trust them, I can understand that. You've been down a long road with them (whose fire has been unfairly fueled by miscommunication). Not trusting them ought to be compartmentalized from trying to listen to what it is they are saying.
Most of these guys are professors, and they must be plenty-used to dissenters asking questions in class, who take up a task to biblically refute their errors. "Wrongness," is an exercise of growth and appreciation for one another and the Word of God, if one has a constructive attitude.
Thoughts?
-Michele
Lou,
Just wanted to leave a quick note, that these things are not going to be worked out today. I have the opinion that it'll take several months to perhaps years, before you'll be able to reach full awareness of what un-necessarily offends and how to most efficiently restore them.
So, don't worry; if I suggest too many new ideas and it becomes frustrating, or sometimes people need a break to recalibrate with the old, I don't mind.
One of the things I noticed that you are good at, is words. There was this one paragraph that made me marvel... let's see; ah yes:
from your latest post:
I think the Crossless gospel is going to stay pretty well contained within the shrinking cell of theological extremists that have tragically fallen into the trap of the Crossless gospel and become the prime instigators of that egregious error.
I mean, all my offense aside (because in the days of dave's osas I hadn't mastery over it), that's one beautiful sentence. You write in emotionally-colorful ways. It makes for a captive readership, which I suppose explains your talent for and success at writing books.
There was another time a while ago where you had a gangster theme to your points; you said there were "drive-by" postings by doctrinal "thugs." I smile inwardly, and I think, "That's Lou."
-Michele
At your blog today, you responded to a portion of a comment by Jan, who said:
"To find subtlety wielded to this degree is very unnerving.”
And you responded saying:
That is why we must do all we can to sound the alarm about the Crossless gospel and the GES. The reductionist errors can and IMO have been easily missed. It is exactly them, the “unsuspecting,” that could be deceived if not forewarned about what is the Crossless gospel is and the subtlety with which the Crossless gospel is introduced.
I want to give you two good reasons why this may not be the end of your priorities....
1 -- Do you know... what the immature in Christ, can do for evil, with good information? ... How about unbelievers? Do they see the good in our discussions like we see the good, or, do they see something else? I have seen the unsaved blaspheme the church, because of the things the church says of one part, to another.
So, we don't want to put this knowledge of grievous error into the wrong hands, and bring reproach to Christ through the announcement of reproach for another brother. Taking thought of the lost. And, yet, at the same time there is a way in which you are also correct, that at any time or place those who are honest and seeking are at risk to being caught up and the result would be much suffering.
So in either extreme there is suffering because of too much sensitive information, or too little critically helpful information.
Can you think of some way to minimize this suffering?
I'm thinking of one, and the credit for it goes to that recent thread on Driscoll over at Sharper Iron forums. We want to put the right information into the hands where it is most relevant. What do you think of wholesale internet declaration; is it all good, or are there drawbacks?
2 -- Remember your colleagues at Sharper Iron, who laid out this conundrum: Naming Names. Anything not born from faith [in God], is sin. Your own people are highly concerned that the YFs learn to follow teachers instead of knowing the truth, and end up compromising toward new evangelicalism, right? How does that happen? Because their faith was not placed in the scriptures but in men, and sometimes men can be true to the scriptures and sometimes they cannot. It's a bad practice for fear of what might enter their library or for popularity's sake, come visit their church. Whenever we follow after the words of men, the enemy will ensnare us into bondage and deception for whatever portion of that saying is unscriptural.
Should "the unsuspecting" understand the bible on faith of your public declarations? Do you want to add your own level of disconnect (for YFs or any other "unsuspecting" Christian) between the hearts of men and God's truth? These unsuspecting ones deserve to be convinced and warned by the Word which is the only Rock of assurance in the day of judgment. What do you think about that?
Thanks, Michele
Michele:
There has been no miscommunication. The teaching of the Crossless gospel heresy is in print from a number of sources beginning with Hodges, Wilkin and right down the list.
Those of us who reject the GES’s reductionist errors on the content of saving faith have cited them verbatim.
Why do you suppose they refuse to meet with men who have over the last few years asked them to do? Very briefly, we have the 2007 FGA organize a private academic meeting for five men on both sides of the debate. Five from the non-Crossless group agreed without hesitation. NO one…NO ONE in the GES/Crossless camp would agree to meet.
Then there was the summer of 2007 when Bob Wilkin was clamoring for a debate. Once Ron Shea agreed to meet Wilkin in open debate, Wilkin suddenly lost his never and in very poor fashion backed out. Incidentally, one man I know very well and is highly respected in FG circles, who has never entered these on line discussions told me something when he heard that Ron Shea agreed to meet Wilkin in debate. He said to me, “Wilkin will never agree to debate Ron because Ron will wipe the floor with him.”
See, Wilkin was all gung-ho to debate Tom Stegall or Dennis Rokser. IMO, either of them would have Scripturally trounced Wilkin, as evidenced by their writings. The problem is that they did not feel it was in the Lord’s will for them to conduct and open debate forum.
Then, once Ron Shea came forward, Wilkin lost his nerve. Why? Because Ron Shea is a brilliant theologian and he is a highly trained debater. My friend was absolute in his conviction, and he knows both Wilkin and Shea very well, that Wilkin would have had his theological clock cleaned by Shea.
See- Open Challenge
I have another friend who sat in on a informal meeting in which Ron Sea and Wilkin were in attendance. Wilkin raised an issue, Shea countered it and Wilkin was never able to get back on track.
Well, that was a long way to say that there has been no miscommunication. The documentation of the GES’s Crossless heresy is available. The answers have been put in print. GES men for a short time tried to reply in the blogs, but were so thoroughly trounced and devastated from the Scriptural replies of Greg Schliesmann, Bret Nazworth, the Starks and others that they had to flee the discussion.
LM
Michele:
What does the Bible say?
“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject,” (Titus 3:10).
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us… And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,” (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15).
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple,” (Rom. 16:17-18).
These passage are not open to selective interpretation. They are the Scriptural mandated responses to brothers in Christ who have gone into gross doctrinal error. The GES’s Crossless gospel is a reduction heresy that assaults the necessary content of saving faith.
We, therefore, have no subjective decision to make: REJECT…ADMONISH, WITHDRAW, MARK & AVOID THEM.
It does not matter what the world thinks. It does not matter how often Rose calls for the ecumenical mindset of let’s just say the Crossless gospel is, “a difference of opinion that is acceptable” and get along no matter what my friends believe.
The Bible mandates the course of action and to refuse to obey what is there is sin.
LM
Lou posted an article by Robert Sumner attacking Joey Faust's Millennial Exclusion position.
I don't agree with everything in Faust's book, but I think it is only fair for me to provide links to his responses:
RESPONSE TO ROBERT L. SUMNER'S REVIEW (Pt.1
RESPONSE TO ROBERT L. SUMNER'S REVIEW (P.2)
Lou,
There has been no miscommunication.
Hold on. If you want to talk about comparing their teachings to the teachings of others, and comparing each of those to scripture, then sure, it's crystal clear. You reference truth which is absolute. I'm talking about your relationships with them and theirs with you. It is in their/your word choices and the differences in your values, that there has been unreconciled offenses for both parties. Until you know how your own culture can be compared and contrasted with their culture, you cannot understand the depth of this severe miscommunication. Just being straight forward, here....
I can and am trying to learn yours so that I can show it to you and others. There is a sizeable difference in what you value and what they value. I guess you'll have to take my word for it if you haven't really noticed this yourself, yet.
I can give you some examples, at this time. Their basic/rough, but they're there.
Here's one:
you said:
Those of us who reject the GES’s reductionist errors on the content of saving faith have cited them verbatim.
Yes I agree. You have those things, verbatim. Quotes are verbatim, still everyone notices a little something different according to their grid.
For example, here, you highlight your values off the page of scripture:
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us… And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,” (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15).
But I read that passage and my heart is burdened for other facets than yours:
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us… And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,” (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15).
See how easy it is to be different? And we're both right because of the Word. Only together, merging our minds and letting iron sharpen iron, can we treat others the way I believe God wills.
More on your other comments, in a bit.
-Michele
Lou,
Let's talk about the attempts for resolution.
You said:
a private academic meeting for five men on both sides of the debate. Five from the non-Crossless group agreed without hesitation. NO one…NO ONE in the GES/Crossless camp would agree to meet.
I know you left things unresolved with Tim Nichols from awhile ago, so I don't mean to frustrate you by mentioning his comments. However, Nichols said that he had already made plans for Christmas.
He also stated here:
For clarity's sake, let me add here that it's not "the other side" that won't engage in debate -- there are plenty of folks who hold positions other than mine and are more than willing, and I've talked with a number of them. But the people involved with a particular group of churches appear to be getting all the mileage they need out of the accusations themselves, and feel no need to engage in debate. Sept 23, 2008 12:02 PM
It's not (the critics of the so-called crossless gospel) who refuse to really talk, it's (Duluthian-doctrine church leaders and their proxies). I'm *not* saying that the whole "anti-crossless" theological camp is running from discussion, just the folks who share a certain political allegiance to DBC, et al. BIG qualifier here: this is in my experience, and that of the friends I've discussed the matter with. There may be exceptions; I certainly hope there are. Sept 26, 2008 1:31 PM
Take a look at how he comes to his conclusions, please, because I look at you by the same scrutiny. So far, you and he pretty much equals. You both hear these things, secondhand. You both were not present yourselves. You both are speaking for others according to what you've heard from those on your side. ... I don't think I should even bother making up my mind who is to blame, because you know what is more important? That each side works to understand the other instead of just allowing offenses to be created and then walk away, storing them up inside.
Again, if another's values are different than yours and they do not uphold that which is most important to you, well, most people would take a look at that and assume a lack of personal character. ! But all this is differing systems of values.
For instance (I have another one):
You said: He said to me, “Wilkin will never agree to debate Ron because Ron will wipe the floor with him.”
If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm big on HONOR. Yes, I can get a little fundy, too; I have every right as anyone else. This highly respected man whom is close to you, is offensive to me according to what I feel is right and what is wrong in the category of language. You know that I appreciated your Driscoll thread because I hold that belief. My beliefs say he should have more respect. But what am I really observing here? Maybe he needs a little correction, maybe he doesn't yet have a conviction over his choice in describing a fellow brother. I don't know. But it doesn't mean he's wrong in speaking that way, I suppose, just different. You seem to think he's honorable. He must be so.
The emotion of offense can just be blinding, sometimes. I am sure all of us will say so. I hope this has been another sufficient illustration.
Let's go on.
You said:
Then there was the summer of 2007 when Bob Wilkin was clamoring for a debate. Once Ron Shea agreed to meet Wilkin in open debate, Wilkin suddenly lost his never and in very poor fashion backed out.
Not what I heard. From a reliable source.
You said:
Wilkin was all gung-ho to debate Tom Stegall or Dennis Rokser. IMO, either of them would have Scripturally trounced Wilkin, as evidenced by their writings.
Again, not what I heard, from another reliable source.
Conclusions? My conclusion is, it's none of our business. This is their business, and you and I shouldn't even concern ourselves with it.
You said:
You might pause to reflect on the fact that many men (outside IFB circles) in the FG community have ceased to fellowship with GES because of their (GES) egregious doctrinal errors.
...I can't understand what your role is in announcing their movement when they do not announce it themselves. I can't find any FGA's leader's blog or site making this kind of announcement. Perhaps this observation can be made with an eye to relationships (honor, respect, patience)?
Second-hand (or in my case, third-hand) information, plus, allowing offenses to be unresolved (Matt 18; such as the offense I take at the language of a fellow brother without letting him explain himself to me if I were to go to him).... All this makes for progress toward failure, misunderstanding, and tragedy.
Am I communicating well to you?
Thanks, Michele
Michele:
The one true tragedy is the reductionist assault by GES on the content of saving faith. That is the “tragedy” of the GES’s Crossless & Deityless gospel, which is the tragic legacy of Zane Hodges.
In conclusion I want to reassure you, and any who read your blog, that there are those of us who are going to consistently stand in defense of the Gospel against the heresy of the GES’s Crossless gospel.
There is no way we are going to stand by and give the advocates of the Crossless gospel, and their supporters, any room or opportunity to deceive even one more unsuspecting believer.
Have a nice weekend.
LM
PS: Later today I am announcing the publication (at my blog) of a multi-part series.
Lou,
Thank you for taking a steadfast stand for the Gospel, brother.
May those who are called by His Holy Name never compromise on the Word of God...never, never, never, never!
In Christ,
CD
Lou,
Three times in the past we have parted ways; two unreconciled and unconfessed, and the one in the middle was on an occasion of reconciliation and mutual confession.
You remember the occasion where we peaceably departed?
Please do not view my uncompromising stand against the teaching and teachers of the CG as coming from one who is uncaring. I am gong to take just enough time to reassure you that I do care about people.
I'm patient to see you draw forth your relational core.
I am held to accountability to measure the grand interaction as either invested well or invested improperly. You may willfully reject the Spirit of God working at this time through me, and I will not interfere if that is your choice.
-Michele
Dear CD:
Thanks for the encouraging note.
On a serious note, those of us who understand the reductionist heresy of the GES’s Crossless gospel would love to see some of these folks recovered from and repent of it. Not to make them grovel, but because they are out of God’s will and doing harm to the cause of Christ. They are on a path He cannot bless because they are undermining and corrupting the Gospel.
The main problem is that many of the followers of Hodges’s Crossless theology are seared in their conscience and in a cult like bondage of loyalty to the man Hodges. With the passing of Hodges their allegiance to his reductionist teaching will likely become more passionate and hardened.
Then you have the ecumenical mindset of people like Rose of Rose’s Reasonings who calls for compromise with and insists we must accept the heresy of the Crossless gospel and embrace the prime instigators of it as if they are balanced in their soteriology. One of my blog partners had this note from the article above, “Rose isn’t committed to anything except the middle -- and this is one of those cases where being in the ‘middle’ reveals a compromised stance rather than balance.”
In any event, I can assure that there are many of us who will NEVER cease to defend the Gospel of Jesus Christ against the reductionist assaults of Hodges, Wilkin & GES.
We will do all we can to protect the body of believers from being swept up and into the egregious errors of the GES’s Crossless & Deityless gospel.
Kind regards,
LM
PS: Michele, something for you later.
Lou,
I don't mind you responding with your beliefs to Coram here on my blog... as long as you keep it to one paragraph, please, and do not talk about the beliefs or actions of any particular individuals beyond those promoters recognized in teaching institutions (ie Hodges).
Thanks, Michele
Lou,
I'm glad to talk to you, but before we talk anymore about details, I would like to hear something of whether or not you are interested in improving your relationships.
To understand my grasp of your responsibility vs. my responsibility, please read my latest post.
Thank you, Michele
Michele:
The Bible guides what our responsibility is...how we relate to the body of Christ. Including those who have fallen into and/or become the prime instigators of reductionist heresy such as the GES's Crossless gospel.
What does the Bible say?
“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject,” (Titus 3:10).
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us… And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,” (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15).
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple,” (Rom. 16:17-18).
These passage are not open to selective interpretation. They are NOT to be supplanted by a Psych 101 type of approach to interpersonal relationships or an ecumenical kind of let's all get along no matter what kind of reductionist assault is perpetrated on the content of saving faith.
They Scriptures above are mandated responses to brothers in Christ who have gone into gross doctrinal error. The GES’s Crossless gospel is a reduction heresy that assaults the necessary content of saving faith.
We, therefore, have no subjective decision to make: REJECT…ADMONISH, WITHDRAW, MARK & AVOID THEM.
We are praying for them (as we contend for the faith) to be recovered and repent. In the meantime, alert and protect the rest of the body of Christ so that they are not deceived by the teachers of GES's Crossless gospel.
The Bible mandates the course of action and to refuse to obey what is there is sin.
I trust you will agree that the BIBLE MANDATES our responsibility...how we must respond to the Crossless gospel and its advocates.
I encourage you to discuss with me the Scriptural mandates such as I have cited above that define our responsibility.
LM
LM & Michelle,
The Holy Writ reserves its harshest language for those who preach another gospel, and if one's gospel is crossless and deityless then one has denied the basic, fundamental tenets of the faith and abides under the curse of God Almighty.
The inspired Apostle Paul utters the strongest curse found in scripture against the false teachers of a false gospel - the Word of God itself passes judgment upon and condemns such men:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)
This is a powerful and shocking condemnation spoken by the Holy Spirit through the inspired apostle which goes beyond intramural doctrinal separation and enters into the realm of considering those who hold such anti-christ positions as witnessing prospects who are outside the faith that was once and for all delivered unto the saints.
In Christ,
CD
CD:
For clarification, the “Crossless” gospel teaching of Hodges and Wilkin is that a lost man can be born again apart from knowing, understanding or believing in the deity of Christ and what He did to provide salvation.
CG advocates will consistently cry the mantra of, “we believe in the deity and finished work of Christ,” but that is NOT what the controversy is over. We who reject the egregious reductionist teaching of the CG have always acknowledged that the Crossless gospel advocates believe in these truths. The controversy, to reiterate, is that they insist the lost do not have to be aware of or believe any of it, but can still be born again.
This is why we call their stripping the Gospel of it necessary saving content a Crossless and Deityless gospel.
Here are links to some articles that bring all of this out. The first is the series by Pastor Tom Stegall titled, The Tragedy of the “Crossless” Gospel. It is a multipart series that you can download in PDF for at the Grace Family Journal. You will find the series on the 2007 and 2008 pages.
Then you can view these for additional commentary.
GES Reductionist Affirmation of Belief
Heresy of the “Crossless” Gospel: Verified & Affirmed
Kind regards,
LM
Lou,
You need to take that last post and send it via email, or find another way to share it, such as the one paragraph or take your conversation about that issue to Coram's blog. It's off topic here and you aren't considering my request in my space.
I can overcome a good deal of offense but I made a rule. Even you have material you want to restrict on your own site, so I know you know why I do so.
Michele
Dear Readers, this conversation has been continued into another post titled, "Methodology of Grace."
Thanks, Michele
Post a Comment