For your review, the finished posts on the Free Grace Alliance National Conference Lecture Series.
I will be working hard to bring said teachings here so that you may make your own mind by the resources I by the grace of God may supply.
Every message which did not concern scripture itself, given at the FGA Conference was a dictation of the method I am in-step of laying before y'all. Dr. Fred Lybrand calls it "mentoring." I called it advocacy. I don't care what it's called just so long as it's the authentic business of making disciples.
It is very clear, that unless you strive for greater awareness outside your comfort zone, you are, simply, what your paradigm tells you to be. Within that construct, any one person has the will to either run away from walking by faith, or, submit to those who can gently lead as Christ out from weakness. Which one is it; does he just not know where to start or is it that he lacks desire? Well, it's none of my business, but at any one time it may be one or the other or even a combination, actually. If he's done, he's done, and of course the ministry comes to a close and so does the intimacy of his position with the body of Christ. After all, I am seeking him and he not I. It's out of my hands.
I'll make my own assessments, which are leaning at this time to assume that our brother desires to walk in discord rather than according to the tradition of grace being established every day in the free grace movement's position on the issue of conduct. There has to be a consciousness of needing something more, declared somewhere, sometime, in order to not be assessed as intentionally stepping ahead of the tradition being handed down to us, even if not in real-time conformity for perhaps several years.
This methodology is at the heart of the free grace organization. I knew it, before I even bought my plane tickets. Free grace is rock-solid, right on in theology and in manner of practice.
For the assessment I made on this issue immediate after my return:
Pit in the Stomach
I am convinced the way to do it, is the way the FGA leadership taught among a great cloud of other witnesses. I will be publishing more of those sessions, soon.
Meanwhile I am pleased to share with you a song (not formulating my doctrine of course) but declaring Christ's victory!
Lyrics:
"Lord hide me far away from trouble
The world outside me grows darker by the day"
So I promise to stay here close beside Him
Surely God would want His children safe
Then reading, how my eyes were opened
I find that He is leading us out into the world
Into the middle of fallen saints and sinners
Where a little grace is needed most
Come take the Light to darker parts
Share His truth with hardened hearts
We are not like the world, but we can love them
Come bring the hope to hopeless men
Until the lost are found in Him
He came to save the world so let us be. . .
In it, not of it
Wait a minute
If we say we love them, why are we not in it
Why we run and hide
Entertain a stranger
Maybe entertain an angel
The danger is if our worlds don't collide
We've cursed the darkness far too long
We need to hold the candle high
We have to go and right the wrong
We need to touch the world with love.
"You give them something to eat."
15 comments:
Michele:
I need to reiterate that we need to look to and obey what is in the Scriptures.
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 Scriptures above are mandated responses to brothers in Christ who have gone into gross doctrinal error. The GES’s Crossless gospel is a reductionist assault on the necessary content of saving faith.
We, therefore, have no subjective decision to make: We must REJECT…ADMONISH, WITHDRAW, MARK & AVOID THEM who are the prime instigators of this dangerous teaching that originated in the mind of Zane Hodges and is perpetuated by Bob Wilkin through the GES.
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
PS: I will get back to this tonight or tomorrow. I have more from a Scriptural standpoint for your consideration on what our relationships must be when confronted with the teachers of an obvious departure from biblical truth on major doctrine
Lou,
Reiterating is a valuable thing in conversations. I think I know that according to your beliefs you are not doing the good your know you ought to do by failing to take every occasion to refute & make disclaimers. Because I understand that it is a matter of obedience for you, I am letting you have one paragraph, to respond in the case these things come up off topic (regarding the controversial crossless gospel).
Three or four sentences, a couple links; this gets the job done and serves as the spring-board for you to get them the information they need.
I'm just going to leave it to you to get that done before we go on. I've been sitting on subsequent responses, waiting. I'm going to go ahead and put them here. If you have a problem with the request, discuss.
Conversations are give-receive. I'd like to know that you're listening.
Thanks, Michele
Hi Lou,
I think this is your way of expressing a yes,
I encourage you to discuss with me...
But you're saying you hesitiate a bit to know if it will be worthwhile. Your stipulation was that it focus on the biblical mandates. If this is not a "yes" for "willingness to explore and consider" then please, let that be your first business to re-explain. I need to add, that in the last couple days I've been meditating on a few points I've made in the previous thread, IFBs, trying to "hear" it from your point of view. I realized yesterday, that, linguistically speaking, I'm not hitting the mark every time. I'll illustrate:
Some of my previous statements above:
"Wrongness," is an exercise of growth and appreciation for one another and the Word of God, if one has a constructive attitude.
TRANSLATION:
"Compromise;" I'm asking you to sin.
Only together, merging our minds and letting iron sharpen iron, can we treat others the way I believe God wills.
TRANSLATION:
"Compromise;" I'm asking you to sin; new-age philosophy.
Until you know how your own culture can be compared and contrasted with their culture...
TRANSLATION:
"Compromise;" I'm asking you to sin; influence from the world.
Am I right? I apologized in advance a few days ago I know my language is occasionally gross with "sin" like this, I just haven't the expertise to be cleaned up (and sometimes reconsider the belief underneath) yet but I'm getting there. I work hard to use concepts that are agreeable to the biblical motives that you own. Coram Deo confirmed that I was mixing language to promote compromise, by his praise for your stand.
Hear me well: my intentions are for you to remain true to your beliefs and uncompromising for the truth, with no caveats. I want to protect you. What about anything I say that appears to contradict that? I am making a serious request that you keep enough patience while I work out the kinks, believing in the meantime that the heart of my ideas are from what you would find truly biblical or else heck I'll learn something new and throw mine out. I need experience and study in order to not ignorantly think and speak more "just compromise" messages to you.
Out of all the books you list in the sidebar on biblical separation, which one would you recommend?
As time goes, this will be more and more productive, probably a little rough to start. Bear with me....
Thanks, Michele
Lou, do you have a preference for format? I have a couple suggestions:
1 -- I will release you on a cyclic basis to do and believe as you have, so that you can have the prayer and meditation time to discern the propriety in things I have offered. I do want you to come back when you are done and can articulate what you are thinking. I hope the time spans are shorter more and more but I will give you as much time as you want.
2 -- I invite you to find one other associate of yours, who is from your same belief system, to join here. The reason why I consider this, is for you, because I know it is hard to listen to something foreign and make discernments with precision at all times. But if you had a friend who thinks like you, you both could discuss together the potential merits of these things and have much more peace. It will be a protective measure so that I may never succeed at leading you to compromise - I know this is the utmost characteristic not only of your faith but also for you as an individual and I don't want to take any of that from you. Coram Deo, you are invited if Lou also invites you or Lou, you can choose who you like.
Also at any time I am fine moving this to email, if the points become too uncomfortable, as long as that is alright with you it is with me too.
Refer to this post in the future regarding expectations for this conversation.
Thanks, Michele
Hey,
Phew! Got protections for you out of the way, protections for me out of the way. Now we can move on to the content of your post.
Thank you for sharing those scriptures on biblical separation. You said you had some others as well, I'd like to read those as time permits.
Let me share with you the scriptures I look to on biblical separation:
“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).
Comments?
Thanks, Michele
Michele:
I have to honest and tell you that you lost me with all, that you posted above. I don't have time to sort it all out.
I did note this question. "Out of all the books you list in the sidebar on biblical separation, which one would you recommend?"
Read Biblical Separation and The Tragedy of Compromise.
LM
Michele:
I am going to try to brief and to the point to bring some closure to this.
Our responsibility is first and foremost to the Word of God. Allegiance to God and His Word must take precedence over wishes to get along with brethren no matter kind of heresy they are teaching. To disobey God’s Word is sin!
You must understand that the Bible mandates what our response to the brethren who have become teachers of gross doctrinal error must be. The Crossless gospel is radical departure from the biblically defined content of saving faith. Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin have introduced a reductionist heresy in to the body of Christ. Their Crossless gospel is the “cause of divisions and offences” in the body of Christ.
The followers of Zane Hodges’s Crossless gospel are unrepentant and determined to perpetuate this heresy to the cause of further offences. The followers of Hodges and Wilkin (in and out of GES) must be identified and avoided. That is the biblical mandate.
“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).
God mandates our responsibility to Him when confronted with the teachers of “contrary” doctrine, which the Crossless gospel is. If you obey the mandates you will not win a popularity contest. I don’t expect the CG camp to appreciate my partners and my efforts to expose their reductionist errors and naming their prime instigators.
Let me tell you plainly that it is the responsibility of the advocates of the Crossless gospel to take the right steps to restore fellowship. The only way their can be unity and fellowship with the advocates of the Crossless & Deityless gospel is for them to be recovered from their errors and repent of teaching those errors.
This is our hope and prayer. We want to have sweet fellowship with every believer, but NOT at the expense of compromising the Word of God, which forbids fellowship with teachers of the GES’s reductionist assault on the Person and finished work of Jesus Christ.
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?
“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject,” (Titus 3:10).
“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).
Our first responsibility is to what is in the Bible. It is our first responsibility to “mark and avoid” the teachers of the Crossless gospel because it is a “contrary” doctrine causing untold harm to the cause of Christ.
I wrote a series that goes into much greater detail on the issue. It is Bible based, unemotional and very thorough. If you want to understand why I will not compromise the Scriptures -- cannot cooperate and/or fellowship with the Crossless gospel advocates, this series will make that clear. If you truly want to understand this read, Heart to Heart.
I have nothing to gain personally by interacting with you. Lord willing you will not be the next casualty of the Crossless gospel. I am praying that God will keep your heart and mind from being deceived and corrupted by the teachings of GES and its extremist membership.
LM
PS: I may post this in the other thread as well because it is a parallel discussion.
Lou,
Yeah. Well, you'll never do anything different than you have unless you hear something new.
New not necessarily = sin
Michele
Michele:
IMO, you and your readers would benefit greatly by reading the Open Letter to the Free Grace Community by Pastor Tom Stegall.
Here is a brief excerpt:
As we discussed the possibility of publishing some articles about these (GES) doctrinal problems in the Grace Family Journal, we agreed that the best course of action before the Lord would be to FIRST contact the Executive Director of the Grace Evangelical Society, Bob Wilkin, in order to express our concerns on an individual level and hopefully resolve them. What followed was then a three-month attempt, from July-September of 2005, to address my concerns. My personal interactions with Wilkin consisted of an initial phone call, one face-to-face meeting at a conference in Chicago at the end of July, and a three month email exchange, mostly on the subject of the “crossless” gospel. Dennis Rokser joined our email correspondence at Wilkin’s invitation in the months of August-September of 2005.
After determining that Wilkin was unwilling to change his mind about his “crossless” gospel but instead offered repeated correction of mine, my interactions with Wilkin reached an impasse and I decided to end my correspondence with him in early September of 05, though he and Rokser continued briefly thereafter to no avail. It was also at the end of our correspondence that I formally resigned as a member of G.E.S. and asked Wilkin to have our church removed from the G.E.S. church-tracker list to any further association with G.E.S., which he agreed to do. From our perspective, Wilkin was unreceptive to biblical correction from the start.
Merry Christmas,
LM
Lou,
Indeed it would be a blessing to me to discuss this but you have declared "discussion" impossible:
I have nothing to gain personally by interacting with you.
-Michele
Michele:
You misinterpreted my stating, “I have nothing to gain personally by interacting with you.”
I understand how that brief comment could be misunderstood. My intention was to say that I am not trying to use you or your blog for personal advantage. I was interacting because I wanted to.
In any event read Ps. Stegall’s Open Letter It demonstrates the attempts, initiated by Stegall (and Rokser), to reconcile with the GES that you have been speaking of. Wilkin was not recoverable and would not repent of his Crossless gospel. Men like Wilkin and the GES followers have been seared in their conscience by the egregious errors of the Crossless gospel.
Our best efforts now must be devoted to altering the unsuspecting to what the Crossless gospel is and who the prime advocates of it are.
God forbid even one more unsuspecting believer (or lost man) come under the influence of GES, and tragically deceived by the prime instigators of the reductionist heresy on the content of saving faith that was originated by Zane Hodges.
LM
Lou,
I understand how that brief comment could be misunderstood. My intention was to say that I am not trying to use you or your blog for personal advantage. I was interacting because I wanted to.
Now I know you aren't using me (at least in that way). Good. See how important it is to discuss relationships before material? If most anyone else suspected you were using the space, do you think they'd even let you post stuff? No.
Who will listen to anyone when their sensory input is overloaded by what appears to be arrogance, on the part of the one speaking? I don't know if it comes from your religion or your own personality or a combination, but, in the end what matters is that you cause in effect, a crowding out of your material.
That's too bad in my eyes because I am passionately committed to help you.
I have ten million statements here offering to help. You appear to not want it (or need it).
-Michele
Lou,
I'm trying to not be arrogant myself. I'm sorry if I come across that way. I realize that God wants to work in me and fix my problems, and I am content with that. I hope that you have a blessed Christmas season....
Michele
Lou,
I'm sorry that I used the word "arrogant" of you, I don't think you are arrogant, I think in fact that you have humble intentions. I see your personal character shining through in the threads at SI, often, and arrogance is not one of them. Everything else I believe comes from your assurance from the Word, and it does give you much assurance which I can only translate, being another fellow child of God, as faith.
I'm trying to bring an aire of importance to relationships and that was the wrong avenue to take.
I realize more and more that you're trying to direct me to what the bible says on biblical separation. I just don't know how to get into that conversation while protecting it from automatic failure.
Let me think about it some more.
Michele
Hi Lou,
Just wanted to let you know that I'm thinking still of this conversation, trying to get ahold of those books, and looking into the scriptures you shared. I haven't forgotten.
Michele
Post a Comment