Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers.
The KJV translates the same verse as this:
Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive 3054 not about words 3054 to no profit 5539, but to the subverting 2692 of the hearers 191.
3054:
strive λογομαχέω logomacheō
1) to contend about words
2) to wrangle about empty and trifling matters
Root Word (Etymology) from a compound of G3056 and G3164; "word" and "fight":
3164:
fight μάχομαι machomai
1) to fight
a) of armed combatants, or those who engage in a hand to hand struggle
b) of those who engage in a war of words, to quarrel, wrangle, dispute
c) of those who contend at law for property and privileges
5539:
profit χρήσιμος chrēsimos
1) fit for use, useful
2692:
subverting καταστροφή katastrophē
1) overthrow, destruction
a) of cities
2) metaphorical of the extinction of a spirit of consecration
--The only other citation of the word "katastrophē" (2692) is in 2 peter 2:6, which says:
And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow 2692, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly....
191:
hearers ἀκούω akouō
1) to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf
2) to hear
b) to attend to, consider what is or has been said
c) to understand, perceive the sense of what is said
3) to hear something
a) to perceive by the ear what is announced in one's presence
b) to get by hearing learn
c) a thing comes to one's ears, to find out, learn
d) to give ear to a teaching or a teacher
e) to comprehend, to understand
I see these things pop out in the Greek:
-- "word-fight" (3054-3054)
-- "overthrow" of "that which is received and perceived"
-- contending for property and privileges
This verse in 2 Timothy asserts that striving for word privileges causes the message once perceived to be destroyed.
There have been many months dedicated to giving a fitting label to the "consistent" or by another term, "crossless" gospel. The CG (consistent/crossless gospel) advocates occasionally testify that they are offended and repulsed at the "crossless" label. The ones who have applied this term make a case that it is fitting. The CG advocates have asked one of many other options be used in its place. But the ones who coined it insist in keeping it, justifying its use by pointing out that, by their understanding, the term is accurate & truthful.
Let's presume the term "crossless" is accurate and true as a summation of that gospel message. Is "true" the one and only important quality in speech? No; there are other roughly-equally important qualities inherent to a message from the Word and so should our own language model after its teachings. Therefore the term "crossless," while perhaps (or perhaps not) being true, is not yet a finished product.
What goes alongside truth?
Ephesians 4:29
Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
Non-ministering communications and other strivings over words, are sinful. We now know what not to do. What does it look like to have communication work a redemption? What did Jesus do?
Luke 7:37-39
And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil.
It is unrecorded exactly what this woman had known of Jesus and His teachings. Nevertheless she came literally in a break-through. His declarations made her come running. Imagine a ministry of the Word of God that made the people come running in gratitude, like a sheep at the shepherd's voice....
How do we go from here, "corruptive" to there: "ministering"? I am not sure myself. But I know that with the help of the Holy Spirit we might learn to hold our tongue during those times where grace is practiced. There is space for grace by means of not always demanding truth in every detail.
The very next verse after 2 timothy 2:14 is a famous verse:
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Five verses later is another famous passage. It says that not all people teach with success. Not all are like a vessel of honor in usefulness. A servant of the Lord may discover victory in capturing those ensnared in error, through applying grace to their message.
But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work. Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.
Can the Word of God be used in such a way as to generate strife? I believe it can. I ask again: can a holy blameless Word, even though it never returns wholly void, be used in a quarrelsome manner? I believe it can. Perhaps not every manner of preaching is equally redemptive.
Preaching and teaching and other uses of the Word of God may or may not be sanctified, on an individual basis.
16 comments:
Yes.
Hi Michele. :~)
Many who call the glorious simplicity of faith alone in Christ alone: heresy, do not show humility, but are quarrelsome and impatient. They show by their actions that they are not doing the Lord's work, but the work of their flesh and sinful appetites.
Michele:
“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself,” (Titus 3:10).
Paul is giving believers instruction on what must be the reaction to egregious errors (spiritual/doctrinal). “REJECT”! Not just the reprehensible teaching, but “REJECT” the heretics that teach these perversions of truth.
Many men in FG and other circles have publicly identified Zane Hodges Bob Wilkin (Antonio da Rosa) as heretics. Jon Perreault was one of the most outspoken in 2008 on the heresy of Antonio. I regard to this he wrote the article, The Heretic in Antonio!, which is an excellent expose, especially the thread on how we can know for certain that Antonio is a teacher of gross heresy and danger to the NT church.
Even more compelling is Jon Moorhead’s Is This Heresy? That article, especially the thread gets at many of the core problems with the heresy of Antonio’s Crossless & Deityless gospel. In a separate post I’ll share some powerful comments that Jon Perreault (JP) posted to Antonio and Rose in that thread.
Antonio da Rosa (aka- Sock Puppet: fg me) is one of the less know, but most vitriolic instigators of the reductionist heresy known as the Crossless gospel.
LM
Michele:
This is a portion of JP’s extend comment at the article, Is This Heresy?
To Rose JP wrote,
“Rose, You are preaching your ‘opinion’, I am preaching the ‘truth’ of God’s ‘Word’ (2 Tim. 3:16-17, 4:1-4). The Scriptures are clear: (Acts 20:29-31; 1 Tim. 4:1-2; 2 Tim. 4:1-4.
He went on to cautioned Rose by stating to her, “By defending da Rosa, you (Rose) are defending ‘doctrines of demons’, ‘myths’, and heresy. As the apostle Paul pleaded with the Galatian Christians concerning their acceptance of a perverted gospel, I plead with you: ‘O foolish Christian, who has bewitched you’?”
In same comment to Antonio, JP wrote,
“Antonio: Lou has not hijacked this blog. That is preposterous. Lou’s comments very much relate to the topics under discussion. Comments that pertain to your ‘heresy’ are absolutely appropriate.”
You can link to JP’s full comment through this link to Is This Heresy?
That article and thread detail the heretical assaults on the content of saving faith coming from Antonio da Rosa.
LM
Michele:
The teachings of Hodges is what has come to be known and accurately defined as the Crossless Gospel, also known as “REDEFINED Free Grace Theology” and the “Promise Only Gospel.” It is largely because of GES’s heretical reductionist views of the Gospel; many men in the Free Grace community have separated from GES and do not want their name or ministry to be identified with the GES.
Once the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) was formed it became the new home of many men who departed GES over the egregious errors coming from Hodges and Wilkin. Exposure of the egregious errors of Hodges, Wilkin, John Niemela, Rene Lopez, and lesser knowns like Antonio da Rosa (aka: Sock Puppet: fg me) has put GES in cardiac arrest. The egregious reductionist heresy of GES has almost totally isolated it outside any relevant discussion of the Gospel.
The reductionist errors are most stark when comparing the new GES Affirmation of Belief to the previous version.
May I share this article with your guests, Is “ReDefined” Free Grace Theology- Free Grace Theology? The article will help you and your guests understand that the GES and especially Antonio da Rosa do not speak for and do NOT represent the general population of men who identify themselves as members of the Free Grace community.
The Free Grace community has been fractured, and it is a good fracture in that large numbers of FG men have withdrawn from GES over Zane Hodges’s “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel. See- Free Grace: Fractured by the “Crossless” Gospel.
It is a genuine tragedy of his Crossless gospel that Zane Hodges’s lasting legacy will be his having introduced arguably one of the most dangerous reductionist assaults on the Person and work of Christ that the NT church has ever been exposed to by one of its own.
Lord willing not one more unsuspecting believer will fall into the trap of the Crossless gospel.
LM
Hi Lou,
I hope your Christmas & time with family was fulfilling.
In order for legitimacy in a free grace fracture there needs be a proof that there is heresy to begin with. The allegations of heresy have been made, the proofs are not even done being published by the Duluthians let alone by their target, the GES. While there has been no FGA address of the substance of the "heresy" claims, I believe it is jumping the gun to broadcast as much. What's more it is a circumventing of this ongoing devotion to truths of the Word of God regarding all it might say about the matter of the content of saving faith. It is certainly inappropriate to speak on the behalf of the FGA when, at least for me, I have not noticed your produced sanction to do so.
Even at this time there are three vying versions of the precise COSF/gospel: yours, JPs, and the GES. I was told that in 2007 there were six.
If I understand your beliefs correctly, you place a higher premium on fighting for your ideas of right and wrong than on the activity of exploring their content past a point, especially with those who disagree. I appreciate that devotion to the truth taken so far as to not give ground for the propagation of heresy, but at least realize that other people need to discuss the scriptures in-depth, in order to have the confidence they need to call this issue.
You said:
Once the Free Grace Alliance (FGA) was formed it became the new home of many men who departed GES over the egregious errors coming from Hodges and Wilkin.
Read:
A bit of FGA History
It doesn't mean too much to me that I can produce one or two or even three good contradictions to this claim. I think what matters is that in effect this may, may be coming about, even less in just the last year or two. The reasons are mixed. I would be greatly disgusted to discover that your single website has become a self-fulfilling prophecy; "claim it and it must be true." Your tireless efforts in saying these things perpetuates my perception. Truly, this is repulsive in my eyes. I would be fine if most of the men on an individual basis assessed the GES gospel as error and left organization affiliation out of the discussion all together.
It is disrespectful, if my sources are right, to assert the founding or even current purposes of the FGA regarding GES error when those who created the organization to begin with, don't share your theological opinions.
I have to say it again, it's that big before my eyes of a movement against men & purposes who deserve honor even if you possibly do have more accurate beliefs than they: it is disrespect.
On the other hand, I have been looking forward to speaking with you again because I wanted to say that you were right. I have a rule of "keep your beliefs to a single paragraph." It sunk in that this is not fair. I am interested in the underlying content of your beliefs. In a thread a while back you said "I have nothing to gain" through coming here and sharing your beliefs, and I took that and ran with it. I believe your intentions are selfless and in fact I like and respect your character. For me, though, this fundamentalist approach is everything I don't believe in, and, this makes me blind toward censure of you, but, that's not going to help anything. It is very... humbling, to choose to give you space. I'll never know your beliefs if I can't see past my offense for your style to the substance underneath. Please share them as you deem fit for length.
I recently began reading "Grace in Eclipse" by Hodges. I wanted your opinion on it. Have you read it? Does it contain the promise-only gospel? Now that my last free, free grace pastor has left :D , I need to get busy like everyone else does, and read. I need to be able to defend my identity at church as free grace, so the doctrine of eternal rewards needs to be clear for me.
I've heard from two witnesses that I'm wordy. I'm sorry about that.
Thank you, Michele
All,
Other replies on my part will have to wait till tomorrow.
Michele
Michele:
Thanks for the Christmas greeting.
There is no doubt that Hodges, Wilkin, GES membership and have fallen into a gross reductionist heresy in regard to the necessary content of saving faith. The heresy of ZH's Crossless gospel is thoroughly documented.
The most thorough documentation and refutation of the GES’s Crossless gospel can be found at the Grace Family Journal. You and your readers can download the multipart series by Pastor Tom Stegall titled, The Tragedy of the “Crossless” Gospel.
You expressed concern about my blog. First, there are dozens of articles by various contributors that thoroughly expose and biblically refute the heresy that is coming from GES (Hodges, Wilkin and their followers).
The Hollow “Gospel” of the GES by Phillip Evans.
Trivial & Fatal Misconceptions of “Crossless” Theology is one other.
Incidentally, a new multi-part series, by a new contributor, will begin at my blog in mid-January.
Second, my blog is not so powerful that it can bring down the GES. The GES through the heresy of Hodges and Wilkin are bringing down the GES all by themselves. GES is imploding on the altar of the heresy of the Crossless gospel.
Nevertheless, I will do what I can to ensure the GES membership never again mounts any significant campaign to deceive and corrupt even one more believer with the egregious errors that were originated by Hodges.
As long as the Crossless/Deityless/Repentanceless gospel advocates and their sympathizers interact among their own shrinking cell of theological extremists that is fine with me. Venture outside their site and/or blogs and I will be right there to sound the warning and identify not only the heresy of, but the advocates of the Crossless gospel as well. I will do my best to expose and refute the “perverse things” of the Crossless gospel so that the GES followers of Hodges’s CG do not “draw away disciples after them.”
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears,” (Acts 20:28-31).
LM
Hi Michele,
I have been drawn into reading here because of your obvious charm and poise.
You asked,
I recently began reading "Grace in Eclipse" by Hodges. I wanted your opinion on it. Have you read it? Does it contain the promise-only gospel?
I know this question wasn’t addressed to me, but I wanted to offer you a thought. Rosie could tell you about Grace in Eclipse. I have seen it on the nightstand by her bed for a while now and I think she just got done reading it. I have only read two of the late Zane Hodges works so far.
One is Absolutely Free, featured in Antonio's (aka created in the image of God, aka child of God, aka brother in Christ, aka a dear friend, aka someone who has opinions that differ from mine on occasion, and aka another one of thousands of other born again Christians I don't happen to agree with on every point) avatar; the second is his commentary of Hebrews, 1, 2, and 3John published in The Bible Knowledge Commentary a book recommended to me shortly after my conversion by a former pastor, back in the summer of ‘84. Just so there’s no confusion (some of us older folk are easily confused) I was saved in Dec. of ’83 and bought the book in ’84. In these writings, I remember being impressed with his mastery of the Greek language and his simplicity in explanation.
As I read Absolutely Free, I recall finding only two things that I strongly disagree with. One was his on what the outer darkness is and the second was that Christians could be put there. However, his book was refreshing and was a blessing to me, having read The Gospel According to Jesus by John MacArthur.
It’s OK for me to disagree with people and for them to disagree with me. I don’t have to call them a heretic just because I disagree with them. I appreciate your spirit and understanding, Michele. May God continue to give you wisdom as you delve into this issue.
Brother Wendell:
You wrote, “…featured in Antonio's (aka created in the image of God, aka child of God, aka brother in Christ, aka a dear friend, aka someone who has opinions that differ from mine on occasion, and aka another one of thousands of other born again Christians I don't happen to agree with on every point)”
Several comments:
1) The fact that you draw attention to Antonio da Rosa (aka brother in Christ) who is (*aka- the Sock Puppet: fg me and refuses to repent of his sin) shows a special allegiance to him in spite of and at the expense of compromise with his egregious doctrinal errors.
2) The difference of opinion if one exists between you and Antonio has never been published by you that I am aware of. Would you please link Michele and I to any article you wrote that clearly explains any serious difference of opinion you have with Antonio’s reductionist assault on the necessary content of saving faith, i.e. the “Crossless” gospel?
3) While it is true that believers can have differences of opinion on a number of doctrinal issues and still have fellowship, the Gospel is NOT one of them. No more so than having a difference of opinion of the Inspiration of Scripture, but you and Rose are willing to cooperate with and support a man who has assaulted the Person and work of Jesus Christ through the disturbing teachings of the late Zane Hodges. The views of da Rosa are as extreme and heretical from the one end of the theological pendulum swing as the LS views are from the opposite end.
Both you, and especially Rose, have gone out of your way to legitimize, defend, run interference for and support the Crossless gospel and its prime instigators. Both of you do these things on behalf of the Crossless advocates whole at the same time claiming to disagree with their dangerous teachings. This is the sprit of the ecumenical who prefers unity at the expense of doctrine. Even at the expense of the most precious and vital of all doctrines, the Gospel, which is under assault by the likes of the GES membership.
I would encourage both you and Rose to read once again what JP wrote to Rose earlier this year in the Is This Heresy article. JP joined a group of men who cited and verified the heresy of Antonio da Rosa. Rose tried to defend the teaching of da Rosa. This was JP’s admonition to Rose.
“Rose, You are preaching your ‘opinion’, I am preaching the ‘truth’ of God’s ‘Word.’… By defending da Rosa, you (Rose) are defending ‘doctrines of demons’, ‘myths’, and heresy. As the apostle Paul pleaded with the Galatian Christians concerning their acceptance of a perverted gospel, I plead with you: ‘O foolish Christian, who has bewitched you’?”
John, you are doing the same thing, your opinion is taking preeminence over Scripture. That is the mindset that prefers unity at the expense of doctrine. A tragic of-shoot of the inclusivism that has come to be part of the GARBC’s fabric.
LM
* I encourage you to ask Antonio and insist that he answer if he ever posted as the Sock Puppet: fg me at my blog. JP and others asked him, he refused to answer or even acknowledge their request. I do have the professionally documented proof he is the Sock Puppet: fg me and not just that alias, there are others.
All,
Forgive me, I have the flu and I have several thoughts I might share.
-Michele
Hi Michele,
Rosie and I do hope that you get better soon.
I have been drawn into reading here because of your obvious charm and poise.
You asked,
I recently began reading "Grace in Eclipse" by Hodges. I wanted your opinion on it. Have you read it? Does it contain the promise-only gospel?
Lou, whether or not Antonio left you a challenging anonymous question or comment that you cannot answer or somehow frustrates you months ago is none of my concern or interest. "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres." (1Cor.13:4-7)
You are entitled to your opinions however, and I will respectfully decline any further dialogue with you and your erroneous orthopraxis on these blogs until you repent of the lack of demonstrative love for others who disagree with our orthodoxy.
John:
The fact that you have dodged (just like Rose) the obvious issues with the Crossless gospel and my questions to you in that regard are very instructive.
The Heresy of the Crossless Gospel: Verified & Confirmed by Antonio da Rosa and select others.
The ecumenical, such as you and Rose, routinely dodge and evade anything that may force you to come out openly against your friend’s reductionist heresy. This is exactly what you and Rose are doing, if in fact you do have any serious reservations about the Crossless gospel, which appears to be in serious doubt.
I found this comment by you interesting, “…lack of demonstrative love for others who disagree with our orthodoxy.”
1) Another double-standard. You will work in cooperation and fellowship with da Rosa who is infamous all over the blogosphere for numerous examples of bad and unethical behavior. His harsh, unloving public statements against those who reject the heresy he has propagated are prolific, but of course for the sake of friendship first, you will excuse him of it.
2) Whose “orthodoxy” are you speaking of? You/Rose and Antonio? It could be; couldn’t it? You can’t point to any article where you or Rose have stated in clear, unvarnished terms any serious disagreement with the reductionist, heretical teachings of da Rosa.
3) “Who disagree with our orthodoxy? That is whitewashing the facts. These Crossless/Deityless gospel advocates, your friends, not just disagree with the biblical (orthodox), plan of salvation, they have assaulted it through anti-biblical teachings.
It is shameful that you will compromise with false teachers on the most vital of all doctrines, the Gospel. Why? Do you want their friendship and a facade of unity over fidelity to God and His Word? That is, of course, if you do have any serious reservation about their reductionist assaults on the content of saving faith, which IMO is highly doubtful that you and especially Rose do.
Whether or not you care to dialogue with me or not does not matter one wit to me. You and Rose can never have fellowship with me until you repent of your defense and support of the heresy of Zane Hodges’s Crossless gospel.
My focus is to make sure that the heresy of the Crossless gospel (which you can’t even state or point to an article from you or Rose that shows you have any clear and serious problem with) is identified so that others do not fall under its corrupting influence as you and Rose have.
I’ll make you a promise that I made to the advocates of the GES/Crossless gospel. As long as you confine your defense and support of the CG to the pro-Crossless blogs, including Rose’s Reasonings, you will not find me interacting. Venture outside the CG blogs or sites and I will be right there to identify the heresy of the GES and you folks by name who are sympathetic to and supportive of the GES’s reductionist assaults on the Person and work of Jesus Christ.
In any event, I am hopeful you and Rose will either be recovered from the deceptive Crossless teachings of Hodges and/or obey the biblical mandates to “mark” and “avoid” the teachers of “contrary” (heretical) doctrine, which the GES men are.
LM
PS: The Sock Puppet: fg me (Antonio) did much more than pose a question and comment under his false identity, but you don’t care, do you? It appears any breech of ethical behavior by him is acceptable to you and of course legitimized by Rose for the sake of her friendship with him. Sad that you will dismiss not just the heresy of da Rosa, but his bad behavior as well for the sake of unity at the expense of doctrine. Sad! Sad! Sad!
Hi Michele,
I do hope you are beginning to feel better today. I want to apologize to you for going off topic a bit with Lou here, which ironically enough is one of the points of your post (I think). If you prefer I would take this up with Lou at my blog. You decide this is your place, I want to respect that.
Lou, I repent of not offering you a reasonable dialogue, or debate? I will offer you an answer to the best of my ability (which is not saying a whole lot) at my blog if you wish to carry on. In the mean time you may want to read that I do stand for the gospel of Christ, you may read about that on the first few posts on my blog.
BTW I think we share a birthday tomorrow. Happy birthday, Lou.
John,
Between you, me, Rose and Lou I think there's enough patience pooled together here to not start WWIII.
I am very glad that you comment as you see fit. I'm sorry that I haven't been more attentive because I want to get a lot more material out.
You said:
I have been drawn into reading here because of your obvious charm and poise.
I appreciate this. I can't help but think however,
Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised. prov 31:30
I do fear the LORD because in my natural abilities, past experiences and spiritual gifts God has given me, I can and have operated out of routine and my own strength. I know this: if I do not exalt the LORD as Paul said:
We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me. col 1:28-29
No good thing will truly come about, and I will make a fool of myself and the LORD, eventually, one way or another. That's just the way things work, and I know better than that.
Thank you for leaving the comments on "Grace in Eclipse." I look forward to reading it through, pending Lou's recommendations.
I am glad you have come here to support Rose and discuss your own issues as well.
Sincerely, Michele
Post a Comment