The Free Grace Alliance is not associated with the Grace Evangelical Society and does not endorse the GES Gospel (also referred to as "crossless" or "promise only" by some). We invite those who share our heart for the Gospel's clarity and declaration, of both the Person and Work of Christ, to join hands with us.
The newsletter says in a previous paragraph,
This newsletter is really just a quick update about a few strategic items we want you to know about for both prayer and conversation. As you know we are collecting and growing a community of folks who understand and care about Free Grace. Free Grace is that view that recognizes that the Gospel is 'all of grace'---and in particular---that it is 'faith alone in Christ alone' that wins the day. Free Grace has a long history and a number of flavors, but in it all, true Free Gracers preserve the gospel clarity for each generation. Thanks for being a part of this Movement & tell your friends about us; they may want to pitch in too!
"Discussion, But Not Association"
(These topical concepts would be accurate if in reverse; no discussion, but association.)
This newsletter does not bode well for the survival & propagation of free grace theology (FGT). Several reasons:
1 - Discussion is not Complete. Regarding the composition of the Content of Saving Faith (COSF), not all ideas have been explored and researched. Many workshops and main presentations at the GES National Conference last week were direct address to what has been published in recent months on various blogsites. This is evidence of both need for dialogue and interest in dialogue. Other evidences of both need and interest in dialogue, include the long list of comments and articles being published on the internet at various blogs. Those interested in considering the truth regarding the COSF and the precise content of the gospel, addictively read articles published by their theological opposition, think upon them and then write their replies in comments where they are welcomed to do so. On top of all this, at this time there is a gospel from 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Corinthians 1, and the Gospel of John. Within those three camps there are further fractionizations. Some people take most, but not all, of 1 Cor 15. Others have created similar but not identical biblical syntheses on the COSF. All this is to add upon the testimony of some who have testified that in 2007 there were a total of seven versions on the precise content of the gospel, on the table, for discussion. These truths and their proponents do not disappear just because of today's decision for separation.
2 - Association is Critical for Ministry. You may notice the word "association" being used above in the newsletter from the FGA. Be aware that this is a tip to Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church doctrine on what is known as "biblical separation." There are some orthodox, evangelical, free grace people whose foremost allegiance is to obey this doctrine above all other considerations. In fact, according to some IFB leaders, discussion is actually a sin. It has already been established that many important figures influencing FGA leadership are IFB in denominational adherence. With this kind of historical association, and today's report of dialogue being cut short for the sake of "protecting" the truth of the gospel, it does not lend a favorable impression that IFB doctrine (on biblical separation) is not the FGA's foremost factor of solidarity.
For more information on this issue, see previous articles:
The Debate Underneath What is "Crossless"
IFBs
A Testimony of Exit
Baptist History
Sanctification Through Doctrine: IFBs
If the FGA is associated with any one organization, which one would it be? It would be the GES, of course. Last week I was told that of any organization, the GES is the most successful at redeeming people from Lordship Theology. These two organizations, the FGA and the GES, share and exchange teachings and teachers. I was just assured last month that the FGA was and is designed as the place to where all discussion of theological differences would we welcomed and find their home. Is this the truth? It does not seem so today. I was also convinced by speaking directly to FG leaders that the GES is the organization which writes the theology and the FGA the organization which promotes the theology. The two organizations, by reputable testimony and common sense, cannot do without one another. They are associates and partners by every measure. Though with this news perhaps they will be seeking to replace each other in these roles?
3 - Money and Reputation. The most troubling issue of all is the one I see most clearly, being a nobody, who hangs out with nobodys. FGT has in many places gained a reputation of being a divisive teaching. That's its past. What will be its future? If the churches which fund the FGA look at the internet and decide they want none of this trouble, they will not pledge their money to the organization. No money, no connecting and equipping (through sending pastors and hosting conferences). No conferences, no training. No training (in doctrine such as the integrity of being saved by faith alone in Christ alone), no conversions. Evangelical Christianity will not hear of truths such as eternal rewards, or will fail to believe them as authentic, viable, or most importantly Spiritual.
4 - This debate is not "lethal." There are theological issues which should be separated, over. This is not one. Separation doctrine should be designed only for those teachings which undermine either justification or sanctification (Galatians 3). The disagreement over the precise content of the gospel message affects neither. To argue otherwise says that God cannot save despite human mistakes in the presentation, or uneducation in the presentation, but this is not true. J.B. Hixson admits that people become saved without the precise content. Antonio da Rosa admits that error on the presentation of the gospel, meaning the error belonging to those in opposition to him in FG circles, is "not lethal." By these admissions, and by the obvious truth that the gospel has been preached and people have been becoming saved for centuries, how can this debate be a "crisis"? Helpful? Yes. A noble task to define precisely what the gospel is and is not? Yes. What could be a blessing has turned into a curse instead.
Meanwhile, the LORD has provided the context for defending the purity of the gospel and very few are attending and obeying God in equal time and effort according to His much more challenging command. This command is for forbearance at some point and at some level. Yes, forbearance. How far will the fractionization preoccupation be put to practice? There will be nothing left. If everyone separates from everyone else who does not agree with them, today, or in three year's time (as we've given this issue thus far), we lose our testimony of fellowship with an unseen Savior.
Phil 1:3-18
I thank my God every time I remember you. In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart; for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me. God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus.
And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.
Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.
It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
I don't know what Lordship Salvation guy would buy that I was capable of listening and reading the scriptures with him if I couldn't endure in discussion with those who think the most like me, in my own belief system.
84 comments:
You've made some very perceptive points here Michele. I've also noticed that one who claims (?) to be FG is now aligning himself with those who openly and aggressively promote a LS view of the gospel. I suppose it's the ole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome. I guess when you desparately need someone to care about or visit your blog anyone will do, but this does not bode well for the future direction of the FGA. A sign of things to come perhaps? I think they've done much more than just shoot themselves in the foot with this decision. Is anyone supposed to take them seriously now? :~)
You are a blessing Michele!
Gary
Gary,
In real life not many SBCs, GARBs or CBA Baptists run in circles with IFBs. That is because IFBs are separate and independent and do not choose to participate with us in evangelism or any other ministries.
How unseemly the internet has changed this.
Now we have IFBs contributing in part to the growth of free grace theological ideas, and their theological opposition helps open that door to IFBs, too. Free gracers who disagree want to understand their critic's arguments. However, by clicking on their website and reading their latest posts, an unnatural ministry is given to them that they have not had in real life.
In the past three years, we have had IFBs declaring for everyone else what the answers are and doing it in the relationally-absent manner that they do and it has caused shock and alarm to those who are not used to it. Meanwhile for the IFBs themselves, they are commanded to be separate - and how difficult - really impossible it is for them to obey their own command. It is possible, too, that the IFBs are pleased to put off their commands for separation for the time being, because for the first time in a long time, labeling heresy, the crux of their existence and identity, is alive again - where they have been put into contact with others.
The internet cannot assist in their obedience to the command to separate, so in a sense the IFBs take out their grief on us. Until the LORD does something spectacular about this, there will be no peace.
Thanks for stopping in, and letting me espouse. I too am bothered by the friendships and alliances that you have pointed out.
Praying for you this weekend too!
Michele
Michele,
I had exactly the same response to the announcement in the FGA newsletter. For what it's worth, I believe your perceptions of the notions of "association" and of the imminent dangers we face by neglecting or vilifying one another are entirely accurate.
Let me say that I have good reason for optimism since our roundtable talks last week that involved both GES and FGA members. The salient points of discussion at those talks are currently being collated as a foundation for future discussions to be planned.
Thanks for articulating these concerns; we need to have our eyes wide open here. Be assured that we do have Biblical "peacemakers" in our midst working behind the scenes to "sow seeds of righteousness." And your thoughts fit right in with this initiative, Michele.
Right on Michele. You've have them pegged for sure.
About this Sunday. My pastor is going to let me read Bob's Wilkins' entire article "Most Evangelicals Need Evangelizing" before the entire Easter congregation! The church will be packed, so I thank the Lord for this opportunity. He has also been talking with other FG pastor's across the country helping them understand the misguided fanaticism and misrepresentation that is driving this whole absurd controversy. The truth is going to be seen for what it is. The FGA has just seriously compromised their integrity.
Thank you for your prayers.
Gary
Michele,
I am appalled at this action by the FGA; I could not believe my eyes when I read the quotes -
"Free Grace is that view that recognizes that the Gospel is 'all of grace'---and in particular---that it is 'faith alone in Christ alone'" That is exactly what the GES Gospel is. This breaks my heart that these men would go this far.
Jo Ann
Michele,
I appreciated your opinions and insights. We will see how this whole thing hashes out. The FGA's varied soteriologies have been shown to be inadequate for the very reason that they cannot agree. I believe this consideration, testified to quite forcefully at the GES this year, may be a burden too heavy to bear by the FGA. Something will have to give.
The interesting thing is that the efforts of the Separationists are actually causing the FGA to become diluted and ecumenical. How many versions of the Gospel, beside the biblical GES understanding, will it now become the home to? In all reality, there are more than 7 understandings of the gospel and the content of saving faith in the FGA. Undeniably, there are as many positions on it as there are members.
The sky has become the limit on the understanding of the COSF now that objectivity has become a casualty. I don't know how the FGA leaders can live with the dissonance created by realizing that they cannot come to a conscensus (sp?) regarding the most important consideration in a human's life: how to get right with God. Yet they are content to state that the GES understanding of the grace of God is lacking.
If the GES is a shrinking cell of reductionist heretics, what then is the FGA? Is it a bloated band of misfits who are committed to the gospel which none agree upon? Is it a growing ecumenical movement banded together by the slim cord of their common enemies?
Seriously! Not a single one agrees precisely with another on how one is saved. They say they are for the clarity of the gospel! But in reality they have a hatred for clarity and objectivity. Theres is a sad state of affairs that I do not worry about.
I am content to leave them alone and bid them fare-well. I will continue to herald the saving message of Christ that anyone who believes in Him has everlasting life.
One of the problems of Reformed theology is that it seems to have a preoccupation with making converts of Christians. We in consistent Free Grace ought to be winning lost people to Christ and discipling them. This is how our movement will stay vital. We are the ones who have the consistent message and the authoratative pronouncements of Jesus and the Father.
If God is pleased to repair the greater umbrella of Free Grace Theology, so be it. But be prepared to come to grips with the possibility that this split is to authenticate who is to be approved. I have no doubt that the GES is on firm and solid biblical ground, and the FGA soteriologies are not.
Antonio da Rosa
Gary,
I have not read Wilkin's article, still I am happy you are sharing FG truths while getting baptized! Put on a good show brother! :)
You said:
He has also been talking with other FG pastor's across the country helping them understand the misguided fanaticism and misrepresentation that is driving this whole absurd controversy. The truth is going to be seen for what it is. The FGA has just seriously compromised their integrity.
I agree that the FGA is hurting themselves. But if there is blame to fall anywhere it is upon the persuasion that certain personalities or doctrines represented by the GES or other orthodox, evangelical organizations qualify for disassociation and non-cooperation. And that is exactly what they are saying in yesterday's newsletter; a core tenant to IFB practice.
In the place of "disassociation," we have other options. A former FGA President, Dr. Charlie Bing, instead uses the word "distinctions." His FGA National Conference presentation makes clear what distinguishes FG from other evangelical groupings - and also says that heresy is almost irrelevant, what matters is exploring the scriptures.
I have a green mug with the FGA logo on it that I drink coffee out of every so often. On one side is its motto: "CONNECT, ENCOURAGE, and EQUIP." I imagine that there are still many members and leaders in the FGA community who are interested in putting those characteristics to good work.
Thanks for the encouragement,
Michele
Jim,
I am praising the LORD when you said:
Let me say that I have good reason for optimism since our roundtable talks last week that involved both GES and FGA members. The salient points of discussion at those talks are currently being collated as a foundation for future discussions to be planned.
What I would like to say is thank you, for being a gracious presence in these forming moments. And I must apologize for the drama. I said in the original post, "very few" are caught up in making grace the priority. But that's not true. In fact I'd call them the majority. I have been eye-witness to the creation of the concept and formation of several contributor's "blogger's code of ethics" - which will in part attend to the internet component of the FG community.
We also have seen Stephen and Rachel Stark create and mod the TheoTalk Forum to discuss FG doctrine. I was/am pleased to see it go up. Despite the obvious grace and peace exhibited personally by this couple, they are also IFB which may explain the slow momentum and minimal participation there.
As for myself I am trying to put together a something that will channel conflict and turn it into many positive benefits. You have been encouraging to me not only in that but also by just being a man characterized by love for God and His people. It is an incredible blessing to interact with you.
So there is much work done, being done and going to be done.
Thanks for commenting,
Michele
Gary,
These IFB's aren't by any chance snakehandlers are they?
I don't know all that much. But I get that you are partially joking. I wish I were laughing but it is difficult to relax. People want to talk about the scriptures on COSF and the precise gospel with me and I want to learn it, but I mostly can't and the rest, won't. To do so is to act like there is no karate gorilla in the room when it most obviously is.
Recently I conversed with a free grace pastor about how I was planning to go to the GES conference. I asked him why he thought it was not a good idea. He said, "They have no business discussing this issue on the gospel till they get their relationships sorted out first."
I agreed. "Relationship, relationship, relationship" - this is what I said one time in an email to Dr. Fred Lybrand.
Thanks,
Michele
Antonio,
You have a gift for prophecy, I believe. You said:
But be prepared to come to grips with the possibility that this split is to authenticate who is to be approved.
God is speaking similarly to me regarding this. This is amplified because of the timing of this newsletter after your sobering article on J.B. Hixsons's disagreement with who are otherwise, associates. You had to make a headline, for them, because whatever disagreement they take with one another they have not publicized it.
I find it interesting that those who believe in the "groundless" gospel are also IFB, and visa versa. When someone changes their mind away from that gospel they also change their mind on their approach of intra-evangelical relationships. Why these two things should be associated? Either way it does not give the appearance of poised health in the Word of God. Instead it infers another cohesive unknown variable: perhaps a charismatic leader, or other social pressures from within the group.
All which I wrote to Jim above does not mean I encourage others to go out of their way to include the discordant. It's a fresh start for the rest, right?
Boundaries will naturally fall. I would assume that if any one person is truly an IFB, they could never come to any table of fellowship or cooperation. They just can't.
This newsletter may be the veiled form from which FG salvation will appear. And I am ready to receive that salvation because of the value of God's Word and His people. Predicting their voluntary exclusion comes by way of experience, and watching and listening to those who have already been in the trenches trying to reason and relate as I am learning from you and Rose, most humbly.
You said your version of the blogger's code of ethics was "just be a Christian." :) I think you're two steps ahead of me. Once this last call has gone forth, and those who will refuse at that time (if any) refuse, those who are left should have enough sense to do what is right in the face of theological disagreement. An excellent point.
They can disassociate, but does it do anything to help anyone?
Ezekiel 13:15-16
So I will spend my wrath against the wall and against those who covered it with whitewash. I will say to you, "The wall is gone and so are those who whitewashed it, those prophets of Israel who prophesied to Jerusalem and saw visions of peace for her when there was no peace, declares the LORD.
Declaring their opinion of self, being the only "true" FG people, and no association with the rest, solves nothing.
Really appreciated every paragraph of your post here.
Thanks,
Michele
I'm content for now to see who comes out of the woodwork. Things have become so polarized that even people who were previously well known for their level-headed disposition in the face of controversy have become defensive.
This interlude may be an ideal opportunity for us to explore further the Biblical implications of FG theology for our sanctification (has a nice ring to it, no?), both individually and collectively.
Hi Michele,
Thank you for your kind words about us.
"they are also IFB"
? Why do you think we are "IFB"? Isn't there a group of churches with that label? Because if so, our church isn't one of them. We do go to an independent Baptist church, and are fundamental in our doctrine, perhaps that's what you meant? But we are not "IFB" in the sense that it is often used, like "Separationists". Indeed, you know our stance on "church discipline", and it is certainly not in line with most "IFB" people.
In any event, if you could explain what you meant by the comment above, that would probably help. I am just unclear why you perceive that our membership in an independent Baptist church would prevent anyone from participating at the forum.
Jo Ann,
I'm sorry that I kept thinking to reply then got distracted. I'm not sure if we've ever talked before, so if not I'm glad to! I'm sorry too for how it feels. I wonder what happened to the FGA web portal that has been said as in the works since in my hearing, last June? Maybe it is still on its way. It would have been relationally better if they had put it forth, and let the dialogue intermix for a bit, before announcing their official disassociation.
Thanks for commenting,
Michele
Michele,
Discussion regarding the content of saving faith will continue. Why would it stop because the FGA issue their statement?
Have GES & FGA taken their websites off the Internet? Both groups have their churches, schools, books, theological journals, and articles.
I was going to add “blogs” but most FGA members don’t participate. Why would they want to anyway? Just read all the blogs. I guess they don’t feel the love.
Your comments makes it sound like the FGA “had” a formal association with GES. Does GES have an association with FGA?
Is Dr. Wilkin a FGA member? Has he ever been a member of FGA? Dr. Wilkin has made it clear that GES doesn’t have an association with FGA.
It may be time for everyone to relax, and take a deep breath. The Lord is still in control. He will always have a people.
Mike
Hi Rachel,
I'm glad you left a comment and it is a great example of a caveat that I need to mention to whoever may read some of the background posts I've written. IFB churches contain a lot of variety from what I've learned. For instance some are rigidly legalistic and some are not at all. It's hard to categorize with confidence their beliefs and practices because of what you touched on, that you attend an IFB church but as far as I understand it? there is no denomination or "group." They do work together, but they do not allow any para-church authority or say-so, hence the "independent."
So you may be completely different from the next IFB, and I have appreciated getting to know you personally lately. As for the forum, well I would just quote Dr. Pickering, who was able to understand how fundamentalists are seen by evangelicals, when he called them "prickly." To that I would just explain that relationship in the body of Christ comes second to truth. Is this a statement that resonates?
I wasn't planning on doing a post on Pickering though it might be a helpful thing to examine. I'm uploading some JW apologetics this week. In the larger sense I've been increasingly uninterested and obviously unqualified for looking into these things, so if others start picking up on it, I will be pleased.
Feel free to comment.
Take care,
Michele
Mike,
You asked,
Your comments makes it sound like the FGA “had” a formal association with GES. Does GES have an association with FGA?
Had, absolutely.
There are a couple links I would share, one quoting FG leaders, here.
Another, here.
Whether or not there were two facets or one in creating the FGA, it does certainly imply a connection. The two facets I have heard testimony on are that the FGA was started to be the spreading of the theology, and the other was that the FGA would be the place of facilitation for various thoughts within the group.
I appreciate your comment to take a deep breath. Considering the history though it is challenging to not feel a loss.
Thanks,
Michele
Michele,
Is it your understanding that free grace theology started around the time when GES was started?
Did Dr. Wilkin coined the phrase "Faith alone, in Christ alone?"
Thanks,
Mike
Mike,
syour deal man? You seem to have a chip on your shoulder, and are taking something out on Michele.
Men with the FGA were associated with the GES. In the last 5 years Fred Lybrand, Charlie Bing, J.B. Hixson, Fred Chay, George Meisinger, and others have had workshops at the GES conference.
It is the FGA which is taking bold moves and alienating a significant Free Grace theology population. They state that they are for connecting and equipping Free Grace people. But it seems to me that their actions betray a disconnect from that purpose. There is no concensus on the COSF in the FGA. There are as many positions as there are members. But one thing they do stand together in is their war against the Gospel of John.
Whenever one leaves the objective pronouncements of Jesus Christ who has the authority of the Father (whose command is eternal life) as found in the Gospel of John, the only explicitly written evangelistic book in our canon (written some 5-25 years after Paul's death) the whole Bible becomes the object of a subjective scavenger hunt masquerading under the guise of a biblical "synthesis" in order to find all the elements necessary to the content of saving faith. There is no asterisk (*) attached to John 3:16 by the Apostle John that states that something more than believing in Jesus is now necessary for eternal life.
Can you get this!? The FGA is fundamentally disagreeing and distancinf itself with "Faith alone in Christ alone". The GES preaches that a man has eternal life by simply believing in Jesus. And the FGA is at war with that! This does not bode well for them.
Furthermore, how can the FGA be the promoters of a "clear" gospel when they cannot come to a concensus on just what that gospel is? This is the fundamental flaw of allowing tradition to inform one's hermeneutics.
Antonio da Rosa
Hi Michele,
There may not be an IFB "denomination". However, there are churches of a certain type that are typically called "IFB". I would say that our church would not normally be categorized in such a fashion. And didn't you say in an email to me that your church was similar to how mine sounded? Do you perhaps attend a Southern Baptist church? Or do you consider yourself IFB too? I guess I'm saying that just because a church is independent and Baptist doesn't make them "IFB", at least not as it is typically thought of.
I am unsure how to answer your question of whether or not relationship is second to truth. I cannot say what our pastors think personally, and there is no "official" teaching from the church on that. My impression is that they would say it varies based on the situation. Clearly we should choose our friends wisely. People who only drag us down should not be close friends. Yet, I have not heard any teachings saying we should abstain from contact and/or general "relationships" with those whom we disagree with.
Personally, I do not have a problem with maintaining general niceties/acquaintences with those whom I disagree with. I find that the greater/more disagreements, the more naturally there is a "separation" anyway. I guess the main reason I don't specifically avoid people I disagree with is because I usually can't. Family members, coworkers (when I had a job), etc. simply can't be avoided, and I see no reason for me personally to create a chasm.
However, I may advise someone else differently, depending on the specific problem and the maturity level of those involved.
I guess I just don't normally see "relationship" and "truth" as being in conflict. The less I agree with someone, the less we have in common, and naturally the less we will associate together. But I don't really ever think that I should specifically avoid someone because they believe (or don't believe) certain things.
Lastly, I find it odd to read Antonio constantly writing in opposition to "separation". Yet, when someone came to his blog asking how to be saved, and Stephen responded, it was Antonio who deleted Stephen's response. And when Antonio had ONE chat with Stephen in which Stephen didn't agree with him in the first 5 minutes, it was Antonio who stomped off angrily and immediately removed both Stephen and me from his list of Facebook friends. It was also Antonio who was terribly distressed by Jeremy Myers' list of doctrines he was considering changing on, while I was much more understanding and helpful to Jeremy, such that Jeremy apologized to me for having "pegged" me wrong and was interested in continuing to dialogue with me.
Also, if Antonio/GES folks truly believe that the rest of us are adding to the Gospel by requiring the lost to believe more than they (GES) think is necessary, wouldn't they want to separate from us? Antonio is clearly not comfortable evangelizing with us, so in a sense he has already "separated" from us anyway. He refuses to discuss his theology with us, I've given him multiple opportunities and he either falls silent or says that he doesn't want to discuss the criticisms of his views, only the "positive" expressions of his views. Bob Wilkin also cut off communication with us (not as if we could never talk to him again, but cut off the particular discussion). When I've tried to discuss these things with Rose, she tells me "thanks for your comment" and obviously isn't interested. So I don't see how GES is any different than the so-called "Separationists".
Will the real Antonio please stand up? Unfortunately he did. You have a lot of nerve of "accusing anyone" of taking out anything on someone. You really know how to keep the discussion going.
Michele, I'm not trying to take out anything on you. I may not agree with some of your understanding of issues, but I believe your heart is seeking the truth.
The organization called "GES" did not start the FGA. Some of (not all) of the founders of FGA were members of GES. Most of the founder were graduates of Dallas Theological Seminary, but it doesn't mean (DTS) founded the FGA.
Dr. Wilkin was not one of the founders of the FGA. He has never been a member of the group.
I looked at the two links you posted for me. I hope you don't believe everything you read in blogs. The first blog did mention the names of Chafer, John Walvoord, and Charles Ryrie. These men were way before GES. You can find grace men before them.
I don't think fellowship will be restored from the free "grace" blogs.
I wish you all the best in your search for truth.
Mike
Mike,
The organization called "GES" did not start the FGA. Some of (not all) of the founders of FGA were members of GES. Most of the founder were graduates of Dallas Theological Seminary, but it doesn't mean (DTS) founded the FGA.
Hmm. I'm puzzled. You may be right that they were officially not members of the GES. Though they all are leaders the anti-LT movement, right?
I hope you don't believe everything you read in blogs. The first blog did mention the names of Chafer, John Walvoord, and Charles Ryrie. These men were way before GES. You can find grace men before them.
You are correct again. I was aware and trying to point you in the right direction because I'm no expert, but I was aware of this that you are saying.
As for Bob Wilkin, he was a part of the conversation in its inception. I must be missing your point. I realize you don't mean me harm, don't worry about that, okay? :)
I don't think fellowship will be restored from the free "grace" blogs.
Why?
Do you think that they cannot help at all?
Take care, Michele
Michele,
You answered Mike wisely. I appreciate your grace.
Mike,
I got defensive because Michele is so very pure and innocent in all this and as I have read your posts a few times now, you seemed to be making intimidating and sarcastic responses. Nevertheless, what ever it seemed I can be no good judge over the internet, for I do not know how you intended them to be recceived. In any case, I apologize for my defensive stance. I truly do not wish to stifle any meaningful dialogue, and I give you my assurance that I will not take the defensive posture here again. So I ask for your forgiveness, brother.
Rachel,
I don't know if you will find the mp3s of the GES conference worthy of your purchase. But in the two sessions that I gave in the conference there resides comments and answers to why I would delete Stephen's post to a guy lacking assurance. If you do not wish to purchase the mp3s but are still interested in the workshops that I gave, I would be happy to burn those mp3s and send them to you.
One thing must be noted here for you and the guests of Michele's blog. Correct me if I am wrong, but you and company believe I preach a false gospel. I believe that the gospels of the FGA and company are not false, but are mired in qualifications, provisos, and are often ambiguous, unclear, and certainly unbiblically worded. I stated in my workshops that I could fellowship with those in the FGA, for I do not find their errors to be "lethal" but the same couldn't be said of them to me, for they do find my position to be a false gospel. There is much more on this in my presentations.
In discussing the facebook incident, Rachel, I would say this. A certain individual highjacked my blogs, leaving in excess of 300 spammed and vitriolic comments (and he continues to do so with comment moderation on, to the excess of 10-12 per day), vandalizing them for his own sinful pleasure. In these comments he harrassed and harangued me and my blog guests. I sought the help of your husband. In his correspondence with me on chat in Facebook and in email, he not only did not see the sin and hypocrisy of the individual but in some ways gave credence to the notion that such behavior was justified.
I tried to reason with him that if someone from my camp would come over to your blogs and spam 300+ vitriolic and vandalizing comments harrassing and haraguing both you and your guests that I would publicly rebuke that individual and disassociate myself from him. I know that ya'll wouldn't blame me for my comrade's sins, and nor do I blame you for the individual who vandalized my blogs, but that wasn't the point.
My last correspondence with Stephen was this:
I just find it hard to swallow that you want to be on gracious terms with me (which I appreciate very much) yet cannot see [this certain individual's] highjacking of my blog, the necessity of having to delete 215 comments (and counting), as both hypocritical and sinful. It would be better for me, Stephen, if this blind eye will be a continued posture from the people in your camp, that I would rather just endeavor to be polite, but not extend my energies into relations.
I truly appreciate your moderation in this issue. But I am afraid that we just don't see eye to eye on the hypocritical and sinful nature of [this individual's] vengeful vandalism of my blogs.
Furthermore, you state that I refuse to discuss my theology with you. On the contrary, I have invited you both to be participants with me on my blog. and I will do so again: At any time you wish to discuss with me my theology or position, I welcome you to do so on my blog. I will discuss any subject or facet of my position with you there.
Jim Reitman,
You are a brother whom I love and I thank you for your prayers, friendship, advice, and encouragement.
sincerely,
Antonio da Rosa
They call us the "Promise Only" people. I Like that. It's not offensive. It could be a good blog name. I'm going to be gracious and call them the "Promise Plus" people.
GES may not have been the first to use the phrase "Faith Alone in Christ
Alone" but it has been their slogan long before FGA started.
Rachel,
You are right, it is difficult to explain the difference in approach by denomination, perhaps it can be generalized on a scale from less forbearing to more forbearing? My church is CBA (and I think my style fits that association), which is more forbearing than the GARBs or IFBs.
With the context I permitted publication and rebroadcast of above, let me ask if you are interested in looking into this issue? I tried to host this a couple months back. Have you read Pickering? Or some other "separationist" or doctrinal purity book? I haven't even finished Pickering, but to compliment the discussion for the other pov I purchased Swindoll's "Grace Awakening" text, to contrast. Does this interest you?
Thanks, Michele
Good evening everyone, especially our host Michelle.
Antonio, when Rachel said you refuse to discuss your theo with us, your response of "I have invited you both to be participants with me on my blog" misses the point.
She said:
"I've given him multiple opportunities and he either falls silent or says that he doesn't want to discuss the criticisms of his views, only the "positive" expressions of his views."
None of this is said harshly, but the simple fact is that it doesn't matter where we've engaged you, you've repeatedly retreated from discussion when pressed -- in particular when Rachel critically examines and questions your claims. Rather than actually provide meaningful answers, it's our perception (our = Rachel and I since I can't speak for others) that you frequently retreat without actually answering. This is not an accusation, it's a repeated and demonstrable pattern in at least your interactions with Rachel when she points out apparent logical, theological, and factual inconsistencies in your claims. It seems to us that you want to STATE your view to us but not actually DISCUSS/defend those statements when scrutinized.
This is akin to how I see what happened in our facebook chat as well: you stated your position forcefully and essentially demanded that I accept your appraisal of the situation immediately and unconditionally. You were demanding an answer from me on a matter that I repeatedly told you I hadn't even been following. You were apparently unsatisfied with that for some reason and terminated the chat and removed me from your FB "friends"/contacts. Is that your idea of a reasonable / gracious / honorable interaction with me? To demand that I take your word of accusation without question? Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but as much as you might like to believe/portray otherwise, your history in the time I've known you hasn't painted a picture of your word being all that reliable. Have I forgiven you? Yes. Understand then that I'm not saying any of this to incense you or beat up on you, it's simply the bed you've made and you can't honestly deny that. You're forgiven, at least by me, but the consequences of your public trespasses remain.
Michele, I'd like to make one slight correction (and a bit of a shameless plug) if I may. :-) Theotalk is not for "FG" theology, it's for discussing ANY theology whatsoever. As for why traffic is low, I'm certain the main reason is that I've made no efforts to promote it's existence outside of our existing circle. Regardless of actual participation, it serves nevertheless as a tangible demonstration that we (= Rachel and I) are serious about establishing a place where discussion can take place that's free of the politics of banning or comment moderation so prevalent on the blogs. Traction is indeed slow but no matter, the door @ theotalk is open 24/7 to anyone whenever they choose to do so. Theotalk is a PUBLIC forum where all participants are essentially equal and can create topics to discuss whatever THEY feel needs to be discussed. You don't have to wait for me or another admin/team member to create a topic, just create the topic and discuss away! The blogs, even when unmoderated, simply cannot offer that level of equality in participation or representation. Blogs certainly have their place and function, but they simply do not lend themselves to the kind of free-flowing and unhindered discussion that most agree should take place.
Well, Good grief... I intended this to be short! ;-) There's more to say, questions to ask and answer, but I'm out of time and mental energy for the night. Rachel's sick to boot so I may be staying home with the kids tomorrow -- no telling then when I'll be able to be back, but I WILL be back.
Until then, good night
(My apologies if this is full of typos or unfinished sentences. I'm gettin' really tired and have been writing, revising, and re-revising this post for nigh 3+ hours. Eek.)
Stephen,
God bless you for lightening the mood here at my blog. I should have been about that sort of business and was just looking back and regretting not doing so. Kudos. (Those are the kudos I owe you from when I was first to post at your forum!)
I'm sorry Rachel has gotten sick!
Dr. Pickering was describing the hopelessness of one who apostatizes, that they should not be thought as redeem-able. Regardless if I have found an appropriate lens to describe the usual way in which brother Antonio has been assessed by his opponents, can I just ask, is it possible that whatever the usual lens has been, it may have arrived upon you without much deliberation?
Can we look into this issue of how to appraise one in error of different sorts? Because I've heard this thing said, "Bad theology makes for bad character." What's more you both offer a degree of understanding and then are spent, expecting the other to bridge the remainder, but looking into how one thinks about how one thinks may be helpful.
Or perhaps you have another idea that would be helpful?
Thanks, Michele
Let me add to Michele's kudos and say that although I do not know Stephen or Rachel I completely understand his exhaustion. I sense that Stephen and Rachel share my interest in "sowing the fruit of righteousness in peace," and that is exhausting. It not uncommonly takes me hours to revise/edit my lengthier posts out of a desire to minimize the possibility of being misconstrued in a highly charged and defensive blog environment.
Antonio, thank you my brother for your gracious reply above. I think Stephen and Rachel have articulated what sounds to me like reasonable points, again without my being familiar with all the details of past exchanges; their responses on this thread resonate (to me at least) with an invitation---not only to you but to all of us---to openly acknowledge and repent of unnecessarily defensive postures in the past. There is nothing wrong with taking a deep breath, here; no need to either ignore or respond too quickly to what Stephen and Rachel have perceived in past exchanges. I can't help but feel very positive about what they have so carefully articulated, sounds very much like speaking the truth in love (to me at least).
Michele, thanks for the extended quote from LM. While the Scriptures he cited should be taken seriously, I for one don't see where the charge of "ecumenism" holds any water in this current controversy. I don't see a "different gospel" here; I see mega-confusion over failing to properly distinguish between the object of saving faith, which in every age has been the promised Messiah (if that is what JimEd means by "promise only," then bless you, my man), and the basis of salvation, which has everything to do with the cross, resurrection, humanity, deity, virgin birth, etc., of that same promised Messiah, but which has not always been revealed.
To speak of the "Content of Saving Faith" confuses the object of saving faith with the basis of our salvation. Both of these categories have been "beefed up" in "content" by progressive revelation; when sharing Christ we should provide all the "content" that people need---wherever they are in life---for them to fully understand the free offer of eternal life and believe in the promised Messiah alone to provide that gift.
Michele,
I was introduce to free grace theology in the early 70's at a GoTell Evangelism seminar and that was the first time I heard the phrase, "Faith alone, in Christ alone."
Antonio,
I am not a member of GES or FGA. I don't mean to come across as intimidating, maybe a little sarcastic. I am a vocational minister and a consultative specializing in behavioral science. I've only did the blogging thing about 6 or 7 times. This form of discussion takes to much time.
Stephen,
I agree and found it to be true also.
JimEd,
I also believe "Promise Only" is a better term, but calling the other group "Promise Plus" is not gracious or truthful.
It is true that GES has use the slogan, "Faith alone in Christ alone" long before FGA. Do the math, GES was started in 1986 and FGA in 2004, but the Florida Bible group used the slogan way before GES.
GES may have tried, or is trying to get away from the slogan. A while back the GES took the slogan off it's website and replaced it with, "Believe Him for Life" and changed it back to "Faith alone, in Christ alone" when the controversy got heated. Go to this website at www.onlybgtf.com
Michele, you asked me why I don't think the blogs will help to restore the fellowship in the grace family.
I'm not sure if it's the best way of doing ministry. It seems to produce the worst in us. Just read the comments. It's throwing gas in the fire. I read the blogs and can not believe how un-Christlike we are to each other. To many the blogs are nothing more than a soap opera, and to some as additive.
Mike
JimEd,
Nice to meet you. Thanks for answering that question. I like it too, it's biblical language after all, right?
:D Michele
Mike,
I'm glad you came back.
Sounds like you've been around the block, at least with the theology of it all? Well that is cool. I know Antonio has an old pattern, he admits that now but if I may I would like to tell you the person who I got to know face to face last week. He must have some awesome mentors in his life in the last while. He is adept at both receiving and giving out grace. Where does experience like that come from? I think that is the mark of a wise and godly man, even if, even if, there are other flaws - but who doesn't have them? I'm a blogger so people can see my flaws too even if I don't right just yet. It's an embarrassing thought! Just imagine what another twenty years will do for a man who has been given a gift for teaching?
So you see I'm not passing over sin but trying to do as God does - forbearing and hoping because grace is alive.
Setting aside our brother you said:
I'm not sure if it's the best way of doing ministry. It seems to produce the worst in us. Just read the comments. It's throwing gas in the fire. I read the blogs and can not believe how un-Christlike we are to each other. To many the blogs are nothing more than a soap opera, and to some as additive.
Now see I'm much more interested in listening to the new guy in the conversation. Thank you. I too was discussing with someone offline how this was like a soap opera. I was debating waking up this morning and greeting my readers in Robin William's style,
GOOD MORNING, SOAP OPERA!
:D
But I can say that it is possible to have relationships even over the internet. People really can be helped. They can also be hurt. I do think it is also possible to praise God and inspire reverence (the meaning of the word "chaste" in the Greek) amongst God's people. Most want to talk theology. That's cool. It can get out of hand, just like the rest of the Christian life, the disciplines can become our God. The internet is a tool that isn't going anywhere. We can be intentional and learn to use it for good and not harm. What do you think of that?
Thanks again for commenting,
Michele
Hi Jim,
I agree that there is an answer somewhere in scripture for the COSF debate but I think there is also a socio-biblical solution as well. You mentioned that we are bleeding all over the internet. That may have to do with the flesh but my fear is that in the rest of these cases it is assumed to be the flesh when in actuality it is a different grid of biblical priorities causing unnecessary offense.
This is an address to a Baptist problem, and therefore a FG problem, IMHO. I do have the sensation that Pastor Stegall and Rokser would acknowledge separation principles as need for the "not associated." And if they do I think there are many other FG people who do as well. I'd like to have dialogue with them.
I'll post some of Pickering's stuff after a brief interlude and see if it sparks anything useful....
For reader clarification:
My "bleeding all over the Internet" comment was made on Rose's latest thread in response to what I view as overly zealous (and thus needlessly inflammatory) defense of FG distinctives.
Stephen,
There has been no retreating on my part, only exasperation. Have you noted the length of many of your wife's comments, questions, objections, etc.?
I do not have time to interact with dozens of issues concommitantly. Now do I desire to re-invent the wheel, which would often be necessary to do in order to asnwer your wife to her satisfaction.
It is wrong to paint me the way you do when in fact, if you or your wife wishes to take an issue and dialogue with me on it, I have been ready and willing to do so. I have extended my invitations and welcome to you both, and yet I see many blog articles pass without your participation. Tell me why that is so?
I am able to trek on one thing at a time as I have done the past 3-4 years with many, many others on my blog.
It is unreasonable to characterize me as you have with regards to my willingness to discuss issues. I do so all the time, and have done so for years. Yet I am not willing to engage in answering multiple objections at the same time.
It is easy to rifle off a grand list of objections to a position, but it is quite another thing altogether to actually answer them scholarly, sufficiently, biblically, and timely.
Paint me as you will, for you and your side do anyway. But there are those who have a greater impartiality who would interpret the events that have transpired differently as you have.
If you haven't been over to my blog recently, I have written a treatise exposing fundamental flaws with the position that you align yourself with. I am more than happy to begin dialogue with you on those points. Or take for instance any of my past few blog articles. They are their for your consideration and interaction.
I again extend to you or anyone willing to, come over and dialogue.
As an end, I see that you painted me in the Facebook incident as a villain. I saw it completely another way. I note that after my last email you failed to follow up with a reply. I also note that you have failed to respond to my statements concerning if the roles were reversed. Nor have you given an assessment of the harrassing, haranguing vandalism that occurred (and is still going on with moderation) on my blog from a man who you have personally aligned with and fellowship with.
Believe me Stephen, if an individual on my side did the same thing to you as one on your side continues to do to me, I would confront him, and if he did not cease, I would never again associate myself with such a one.
Antonio
Antonio,
Thank you for your offer to send me the mp3s of your workshops. I admit I was not planning on purchasing a copy of the conference, so if you are still willing to send me the copies, I will listen to them.
I believe you may have missed my original point regarding you. I was not necessarily looking for an explanation from you as to why you did this or that. I was simply pointing out that you and others in the GES seem to be just as "separation-minded" as those whom you accuse of such on our side.
For instance, I have a good idea why you deleted Stephen's response to the guy at your blog. My point was that you did delete it, which is more in line with a "separationist" mentality.
Regarding Facebook, my point was that you are the one who removed us as friends, and that after only one attempt at interacting with us on the issue, and certainly no attempt on your part to even give us a chance to explain our view, let alone try to understand it. Do you not see how that is reflective of the "separationist" mentality you have so often decried as of late?
Let me be overtly clear: I find it hypocritical of you to blast Lou, Hixson, etc. of being "separationists" when you yourself act in a similar manner.
You said,
"I stated in my workshops that I could fellowship with those in the FGA"
We're not in the FGA, but I assume you would include us in this statement as well. And indeed, I have said the same about you. Yet we are the ones attempting fellowship, while you deny us such at every turn. You seem to find one area of dissgreement (the situation with Lou posting at your blogs, which you haven't even given us a chance on) cause enough to "separate" from us and to disrupt "fellowship". It is difficult to listen to your complaints about others being "separationists" when you exhibit similar actions.
Antonio,
I must confess that it is somewhat frustrating to hear, first from Rose and now you, that my comments are too long or discuss too many points, and that is why you avoid them.
First of all, if you or Rose or whoever prefers "sound-bite" theology in one-paragraph comments, then you won't get that from me and perhaps I should avoid any significant conversation with you. I'm interested in a discussion of these issues, which requires some hashing out and, yes, a good amount of reading in order to fully understand and agree with or refute the other's position.
But second, I again find it hypocritical that you complain that my comments are too long. Your most recent article about Hixson was 6 pages long (of a Word document) and just shy of 3,000 words. Most of your other articles are also fairly lengthy. Yet you expect me to respond by picking just one issue and writing brief comments? This is yet another reason why I'd rather discuss these issues at our forum, where longer comments are more welcome, and the site is neutral with no banning, moderation, etc. I note that you indicate we are welcome at your blog, which I am thankful for, but you seem to be also making it clear that you will only discuss these things at your blog. If I am mistaken about that, please correct me. But if I am right, why is that?
You said,
"I am not willing to engage in answering multiple objections at the same time."
I have difficulty seeing how this is fair though, when you post an article with numerous points that could be contended. If you only want to talk about one thing at a time, maybe you should only post one thing at a time.
Even so, the last time I tried to discuss your position with you (at JP's blog), you reiterated how you didn't have time and asked that I pick just one issue. I did - here is my last comment to you there on January 10 (3 months ago):
"Please show us a few of the many places you claim that Hodges taught that the lost are required to believe that the Jesus they're believing in is the Jesus of the Bible.
I will wait for your response"
I realize that JP has recently deleted pretty much everything at his blog, so this comment isn't there anymore. But I still have it, and of course you could respond at your blog rather than JP's, or at our forum. But yet it's been 3 months, and no response from you on that issue.
In any case, you also said this to me at JP's:
"When statements such as yours concerning my comments are full of innacuracies and holes in logic, it seems that to sufficiently show your errors that I must reinvent the wheel, something that is not prudent for me to do. I must choose wisely where I will spend my time. And at this juncture, the positive expression of my positions seems to me to be where the best use of my time is."
So here, you broad-brush my position as having tons of problems, but you don't have time to correct even one of them. In fact, in the statement above, you remark that you're not even interested in defending your positions, but merely the "positive expressions" of them.
You asked why it is that articles of yours are posted without contribution from us. I hope the reason why has been made clear in this comment. I have no interest in taking the time to explain my problems with your positions, when I have no reason to think that you'll bother to answer them.
Stephen & Rachel, and Antonio,
I trust that if you were fortunate enough to attend a service this evening that you were ministered to by our God. I can't help but again note frustration. Can we try something new? Here is what this environment has trained both sides to do...
1 - defend your own reasons for things
2 - keep a list of what the other has failed to do right
3 - keep a score of their wrongs and allowed it to nearly fully alienate your feelings
what if,
1 - each could suggest what the other is doing well
2 - keep a list of rights and wrongs in order to understand where to free them from expectations
3 - put forgiveness over the grieving wrongs of the other
Now I'm not suggesting you each should expect the relationship can be now where you think it most necessarily should. But what is in your court right now? What do you have power over? Not one another. However you can forgive: this is under your control. Forgiveness is independent of the other man's recognition or repentance. Forgiveness can be given to any man at any time.
Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. ... For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him.... rom 5:7
Now can be the perfect time to cover over the offenses. It's just an idea, you know I plan to run this article on Pickering so that if there is something you cannot understand about one another and that too needs help, maybe it can be. But these most timeless and timely truths of the faith we share should probably receive the most attention.
With compassion, Michele
Michele,
As regards Pickering and Swindoll, I had never heard of Pickering until reading about him in these discussions. Nor have I ever read a book about "separation", that I know of. OTOH, I have long admired and appreciated Swindoll. I have not read Grace Awakening either, but can't imagine I'd have any serious problems with it. So I may not be the right person to look into the comparisons - I'm simply not familiar with the "official" articulations of either side.
Howdy Michele!
I have read most of the comments so far, & may I say that all of you here are precious brethren & sisterns in Christ!!! But I must say right nowe with limited time that these words from bro. Jim, just blessed my heart & made the point beautifully. He said: "To speak of the "Content of Saving Faith" confuses the object of saving faith with the basis of our salvation. Both of these categories have been "beefed up" in "content" by progressive revelation; when sharing Christ we should provide all the "content" that people need---wherever they are in life---for them to fully understand the free offer of eternal life and believe in the promised Messiah alone to provide that gift." Amen! May the Lord bless you all!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stephen & Rachel and Antonio,
The forgiveness is just a suggestion, tuck it under your cap for later. You know "God loves a cheerful giver" and the tabernacle was adorned by the skills and talents of men and women who were moved by their own will, to give.
In the context of establishing brotherly love in Ephesians 4 they made this remark about Jesus:
"When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men." vs 8
I encourage each of you to remember your own gifts and think of ways to bless one another with the gifts God has given you individually.
Thank you for sharing your lives with me,
Michele
Hi David,
I'm so glad you stopped by! We're friends on facebook but I don't know you all that well. I agree on the "precious" bit! As for the COSF, I started reading Wilkin's "Confident in Christ" and sometime later I will blog on that. As I was telling Diane over and over again during the conference, I need to learn the whole "eight signs" thing. I suspect this text will teach it, and when I learn it I want to share it.
Thanks for commenting,
Michele
Michele,
I appreciate your heart here. But the problem (at least for us) is not about forgiveness. As Stephen and I have both stated on several occasions, we have forgiven Antonio. The problem is that the consequences remain. And the only reason I present any kind of "list" is as a reminder as to why those consequences exist.
It's sort of like with my children. When they do something wrong, they may apologize and I may forgive them, but the consequences remain. And occasionally they exhibit some memory-loss, in which they somehow seem to think that their consequences are unfair. It is then that it is appropriate to remind them of why things are the way they are.
Please don't misunderstand me, I am in no way saying Antonio is acting like a child. But when someone has a track record of acting in the same manner towards you, you generally try to avoid a situation in which the person has an opportunity to act like that again.
The issue here is not forgiveness, but accountability. It's one thing to forgive someone, it's quite another to remove their accountability for their actions.
Hi Michele, our hostESS ;-) ( I emphasize this bcz I called you HOST earlier... doh!)
I share and appreciate your heart for forgiveness and I would like to state very plainly that Antonio is and has been forgiven, without qualification, for quite some time now. There are however practical matters of patterns of behavior that can't be responsibly "swept under the rug" if interaction is to continue. e.g. Just as I may forgive my wife after discovering she has established a pattern of affairs (this is a hypothetical, Rachel's an angel) few if any would think it "unforgiving" of me to restrict her private time with men in the future. Of course, the ultimate goal is to get to the point where I would in fact have completely restored trust in her but most understand that that would take some time. Same with Antonio -- he's absolutely forgiven, but restoring broken trust takes time and only after whatever broke that trust has been squarely addressed, especially when it was apparently a pattern.
Antonio, I will gladly respond to some of your specific points a bit later. Suffice to say that I believe you have painted us quite inaccurately and I hope to sway you to be a bit more impartial in what I believe is an undeservedly narrow assessment of us.
Happy... uh... Good-Saturday everyone.
Hi Stephen and Rachel,
I hope your boys are having fun, gathering eggs? Or whatever you might do on a day like this for them. My extended family is having issues, typical for the holidays. :(
Thanks for including me in some discussion on approach. I am humbled. I'm going to be hopeful that I might mention at least one thing that you could change your mind on.
I'll run this through a more proactive filter. Okay?
Let's review this thread. I hope you will notice that the first address made here between you three was by Rachel concerning Antonio. She begins a conversation of Antonio with the comments:
Lastly, I find it odd to read Antonio constantly writing in opposition to "separation". Yet, when someone came to his blog asking how to be saved, and Stephen responded, it was Antonio who deleted Stephen's response. And when Antonio had ONE chat with Stephen in which Stephen didn't agree with him in the first 5 minutes, it was Antonio who stomped off angrily and immediately removed both Stephen and me from his list of Facebook friends. It was also Antonio who was terribly distressed by Jeremy Myers' list of doctrines he was considering changing on, while I was much more understanding and helpful to Jeremy, such that Jeremy apologized to me for having "pegged" me wrong and was interested in continuing to dialogue with me.
This is a cry, made by Rachel, begging for Antonio (or others) to minister to her. Not an offer of ministry going out from her, to Antonio.
It was a picking-up of the old track record as you are also saying above. I appreciate that he is forgiven. Just like faith I think there are degrees, or perhaps depths, to forgiveness. Agreeable?
Your forgiveness can be a power that invades his world. Forgiveness is something going the other direction, a ministry from you to him. It is undeserved, as all ministries are. It is given freely, as all ministries are. You know his weaknesses and strengths, you can categorize them sufficiently, so, use this information to free him and also most importantly, yourself. Don't put expectations on him any longer. It will only put you in bondage to his every move. He does not serve you, especially if you truly believe that you are the doctrinally-correct-one in the conversation. Lead. By being the ministering one.
If you know that he is also a separatist and doesn't realize this, okay. Hold that information for now and go to where he is, at, and talk to him there. Or don't talk to him at all if you must. Do what you feel you can do and forget about having the rest of it the way you want. Now, when he asks for more, deny him on principle of where things have fallen through. You call that accountability and I agree with your meaning in that sense - you need to restrict intimacy to where it is due.
Accountability - designed for some people upon others. I am a friend, that's a horizontal relationship. He has mentors in his life and the rest makes it mostly none of my business. I unconditionally love him and occasionally make a suggestion but being critical is not the mark of a real friend.
RIght?
If you cannot disattach your behavior from his choices, no one will ever do anything new.
Thanks, Michele
Hi Michele,
Sorry to hear of your familial difficulties. No egg-hunting for us today, had a birthday party in the morning, then naptime, then I had to be at church at 4:30 for our Saturday evening Easter service (I'm running the slides this weekend). But Stephen and our oldest will do some egg-hunting at grandma's house tomorrow afternoon.
My first comment towards Antonio here had nothing to do with desiring ministry from him or anyone else. I had read Antonio's comment here and found that he had been repeating several themes lately, so I chose one (yes, just one) that stood out to me and pointed it out. I did this primarily because I felt that Antonio was posturing to make his side look better by using a pejorative term, "Separationists". He seemed to be trying to make himself out to be taking the high ground by supposedly being so open to fellowship, when in reality his behavior has been at least as "separationist" as those whom he accuses, if not more so. So I decided to call him on that.
You said,
"Don't put expectations on him any longer. It will only put you in bondage to his every move."
I disagree. I don't see myself in bondage to anything of Antonio. But I cannot simply remove any expectations of him. I expect the same things of him that I expect of everyone: fair and accurate theological discussions, honesty, humility, and a level of maturity. I do not comment every time I see a lack of any of these things in Antonio, or anyone else for that matter. It is only when I see a pervasive lack of any of these things, especially when I believe it may sway those looking on, or when it is particularly blatant.
You said,
"being critical is not the mark of a real friend.
RIght?"
Not necessarily. To the contrary, our closest friends are the ones we've had the most disagreements with, because they rightly feel free to be critical of things we say or do.
In any case though, Antonio is never the sole purpose of anything I write on these blogs to him. In fact, often he is not even the primary purpose. I think it's fair to say that Antonio is pretty sold on his viewpoint. I don't entertain much, if any, hope of convincing him to take my view. Instead, I write for the readers and lurkers, others who are not so convinced.
You said,
"I am a friend, that's a horizontal relationship. He has mentors in his life"
Does he? I don't know that. But either way, your statement here would apply if we were speaking of a simple friendship. With most of my friends, I do as you describe here - primarily overlooking faults and flaws with only a "suggestion" or two occasionally.
But this is different because Antonio has set himself up as a public teacher. Therefore I will address his errors publicly as I feel necessary. Indeed, he has invited critical discourse on his positions. I see this as similar to saying we should cease from being critical of, say, John MacArthur, due to the fact that he probably has mentors who can help him grow. He probably does, but in the meantime, he is leading people astray, and I want to keep that from happening to the extent that I am able.
While of course none of us on these blogs are reaching the multitudes of people that MacArthur is, the same principle applies. You go public and start teaching people and setting yourself up as some kind of authority, I absolutely will put appropriate expectations on you, and generally hold you publicly accountable for what you say and how you act. I don't say that meanly, but matter-of-factly. And I would expect the same attitude towards me.
Rachel,
Please consider this, again, if you will.
I am asking you to take a look at the direction you are communicating you want things to go. I call it a ministry, you call it "call him out on that," etc. so I'll switch my words for yours.
I did this primarily because I felt that Antonio was...
= need, you have a need
I expect the same things of him that I expect of everyone: fair and accurate theological discussions, honesty, humility, and a level of maturity.
= need
Need means, you want something, in this case, from Antonio. Rachel your expectations are fine and normal and good. I don't think you disagree but rather agree in your reply to me. I'm not trying to say there is anything wrong for asking for things (having needs). I just want you to be conscious, is all.
Now that I think we would agree, you want some thing(s) from Antonio....
And you've said them more than once or twice, so I think he understands.
Why do you get to impose what satisfies your ideals? Instead of spending your energy highlighting the bar over his head you could be getting underneath him and lifting him up to the bar.
If you think he is immature, say so, and then can you let it go? You are basically saying that you want to see Christ, demonstrated through his behaviors. But you telling him (more than once) that he's not an expert at exhibiting Christ right now, doesn't make that process go any faster. In fact it makes the process slow down! (galatians 2)
Instead, there are things you can do to make that process go faster, I assume of course that this is what you are interested in, building him up to be the kind of person you are measuring for?
One thing, pray, and when praying release the circumstances into God's hands with faith for His provision.
Two, pour grace and love on the guy, the kind without a critical spirit. This is how God is sanctifying Antonio at this very moment.
Three, "We love because Christ first loved us" - there, the order is established. A good overseer (there's your holding him "accountable" cue) is one who feeds his flock, not drives and demands and expects.
Yes, our brother is a teacher. But teachers are children of God too. Yes, they are held to a stricter standard, so why not get in the business of making him into a workman who need not be ashamed? Nobody is born Christ-like. The fact that he is a teacher who is both young, and publicly known, may open him up wide for attack - it doesn't mean you should pounce when a wound is located.
I'm trying to inspire you to get off the couch and get in on the action of disciplemaking. :D
Hope you're not offended, but inspired to serve in a different way. Goodnight Rachel, have a great worship of our Savior tomorrow okay?
Michele
Good morning all, rejoice in Easter!
Michele, I in no way intend your blog to be a battle ground and I do sincerely appreciate you mediating to some degree in this opportunity to dialog with Antonio and perhaps resolve at least some measure of what stands between us. The following are responses to elements in Antonio's post that he asked for and I promised to respond to it. I'm not trying to "fight", but simply to respond to the items he raised. This post has some length because some length is required to address Antonio's multiple objections with any sufficiency. I trust you and your readers will appreciate that and see that as the motivaton for so much detail.
>>There has been no retreating on my part, only exasperation. Have you noted the length of many of your wife's comments, questions, objections, etc.?
Will you acknowledge that the exasperation is not yours alone? For example, you indicate you are exasperated in part because of the length of some of Rachel's posts. I ask you to consider that OUR exasperation is found in that your "answers" are often too short and vague. Consider that you have repeatedly claimed that you would have to "reinvent the wheel" yet without giving even a single example of what "wheel" you're referring to. You have similarly claimed at times that we are misrepresenting you yet you fail to provide even a single example of what we're misrepresenting you about so as to help us resolve the matter. We genuinely do desire to represent your view correctly, we take no joy in debunking a strawman, and even "The LM" will acknowledge that we've corrected statements made on his blog or in e-mails (by him or others) when we perceive such statement to not accurately reflect your position. Can you see then that your objections are too short and vague at times to be considered meaningful? Indeed, it seems to us you are rifling objections while providing insufficient substance to actually back it up. This is what you claim Rachel has done though I think it much more demonstrable in your pattern of dialog than hers.
Second, your objection that her posts are too long is very odd considering that anyone accustomed to interacting with theology to any depth at all should understand that thoroughness often precludes brevity. As Rachel pointed out, you frequently write articles and comments yourself that are lengthy and multifaceted so it's puzzling that you would object to lengthy and multifaceted responses in kind.
>>I do not have time to interact with dozens of issues concommitantly. Now do I desire to re-invent the wheel...
Dozens? Really? First, I think this is a strawman by exaggeration. Regardless, Rachel has nevertheless obliged you at times by focusing some posts to a single aspect... and still no reponse from you on even those. Can you see that this feeds our exasperation?
And, btw, you did it again -- Claimed you'd need to reinvent the wheel without providing even a single tangible example of what in the world you mean by that. Maybe you DO have examples, but since you haven't provided one yet we're simply left to wonder what you mean.
>>[...] I see many blog articles pass without your participation. Tell me why that is so?
I believe Rachel has already responded to this but my points above can stand alone as to why we haven't just jumped all over that. We appreciate that your invite is still open, we may well participate there again at some future time.
>>It is unreasonable to characterize me as you have with regards to my willingness to discuss issues. I do so all the time, and have done so for years.
Is it? I'd honestly love for that to be true. Please demonstrate that by interacting with at least Rachel beyond a few vague criticisms as mentioned already.
>>Yet I am not willing to engage in answering multiple objections at the same time.
Why not? As mentioned above, you are willing to lengthily OBJECT to multiple things at the same time. Why would you be unwilling to "engage" them afterward?
>>It is easy to rifle off a grand list of objections to a position [...]
Oh man, you're absolutely right on this! Our main ministry is in responding to skeptics of Christianity and teaching Christians to have answers for their hope (1 Pet 3:15) and skeptics do this kind of thing constantly, even have a name for it -- the problem of problems -- which amounts to exactly what you describe here. The idea is that they can hurl so many questions and "problems" at Christianity that "Christianity's just gotta be wrong." Obviously we disagree, and our main ministry at this time is to equip the saints against this barrage. Not so much to argue folks into the kingdom as to keep those who are already in from being argue OUT.
Still, as demonstrated above, we believe you are treating Rachel in this way much more than she could possibly be said to be doing to you. Indeed, the very length of her posts is often the result of the fact that she's NOT just rifling off a list of objections, but rather thought-out and systematic objections that demonstrate research and a non-superficial depth of understanding.
>>Paint me as you will, for you and your side do anyway. But there are those who have a greater impartiality who would interpret the events that have transpired differently as you have.
This kind of unqualified ad-hom is exasperating Antonio. I complimented you a while back when you wrote a comment at JP's that I thought was commendable. I apologized without qualification to you publicly on your blog when you most recently showed signs of trying to begin anew. When Lou pointed out that you haven't commented @theotalk as-if you had failed to keep some committment I corrected his misunderstanding and publicly defended that you had made no such committment and so could not be claimed to be at any fault in the matter. There's more as well, but I think these few examples amply demonstrate that despite our disagreements I'm quite willing to be impartial -- to give you credit where credit is due, and a defense when defense is in order. I believe I've demonstrated sufficient impartiality to render this objection as rambling ad-hom but, hey, I'll hear you're point-of-view if you'd like to present it.
You asked why I didn't respond to your latest e-mail. Frankly, it seemed our conversation was at an end, I didn't realize you expected a response. In your own words, "we just don't see eye to eye". I thought that was your way of indicating that the exchange had reached an impasse so I took the cue.
This is very long, but I believe it is complete. My apologies if I've left something out, just let me know and I'll be happy to continue to correspond.
Hi Readers,
While we're still on the topic of the FGA Disassociation from the GES, I'd like to resubmit some observations I made upon this issue on October 28th of last year.
Free Grace Theology: Are our Vying Gospels 'Theological Legalism'?
When I think of theological legalism [in FGT] I am concerned about this one thing: its beginning premise. It is not as if no one in the world was ever getting saved in the midst of the Lordship Salvation era of evangelism. Free grace began because those who continue to hold fast "to what they heard in the beginning" as the Apostle John commands in his first epistle, notice that the shift of the content of the gospel nevertheless reaps eternal damnation. Clarity had an unmistakeable and growing force of opposition, manifested in Lordship Salvation.
I ask this question: Is it true that there cannot be any error, therefore, in the free grace gospel, lest it fail its mission? We were created with a mission to protect the gospel message from LS-sized error. I observe that we are indoctrinated by our own founding premise, that in order to preserve the gospel from any error, we must preserve it from any people who disagree.
Also, I wrote:
What Will They Say of Free Grace?
Which of these two:
1 - "Free grace began because they wanted to stop people from teaching error about the gospel, but they'll never achieve their goal because they can't unanimously prove what error is and what it is not."
OR
2 - "Free grace began because they wanted to stop the preaching of error in the presentation of the gospel, and everyday they are spurring their world and one another in fulfillment of that goal."
Thanks,
Michele
Hi Michele, this is tough bcz I see the two concepts as so interwoven. As worded, I'd choose #2 but that's primarily because #1 is worded in such a way as to carry a negative load and #2 is loaded positively. If I may reduce the two to their more basic elements however, that of "teaching error" vs "preaching error" then I'd probably still pick #2 but it becomes a much tighter race and depends on how much qualification I'm allowed. :-)
So, hmmmm... I think I'd favor #2 if I'm allowed to qualify that I believe good preaching is more likely to be the result of good teaching than good teaching is to be the result of good preaching. IOW, I believe #2 implies that good teaching has taken place, but #1 doesn't imply that good preaching has taken place. Thus, #2 is preferable because it seems the more comprehensive answer as I believe it implies the positive aspects of #1. I think I'm getting repetitive and chasing my tail in a small circle... so I'll stop now before I get hurt. Woof.
Greets again Michele. In re-reading your comment I believe I may have missed your intent by a few degrees. If I need me to re-align my answer to minister to your intent just throw the ball again and I'll chase it again.
BTW, you asked earlier for us to say some positive things about each other and I'm happy to oblige. One thing I have pointed out before is that BW/GES are what motivated me to finally get very clear on what I believe is the essential content of "faith alone in Christ alone". Before BW's visit to our church I would likely have not been able to give a concise clear answer. Although Antonio was not a direct influence, he is a very active agent for their mission so I believe this particular praise can be extended to him as well, and all the others on "his" side of the discussion quite frankly. (BOTH sides share and promote this vision, nevertheless it was "his side" that was my specific prompter and there's no reason to deny them the credit of being the ones whose efforts bore the fruit of causing me to finally reconcile the matter with clarity.) While I disagree with their specific conclusions, WHAT they are asking the Christian community to do is absolutely essential and commendable. Despite our disagreements on the specifics, not one scrap of me doubts Antonio's sincerity of purpose to reach the lost with a crystal clear gospel of salvation. Assuming that what I see is true, many more Christians could stand to absorb Antonio's zeal for actually REACHING the lost rather than talking ABOUT reaching the lost but doing nothing.
Stephen,
Thank you for listening to little old me. And a much bigger thank you for acknowledging what good there is not only in individuals, but in the movement as a whole. I am impressed, and grateful. (This deserves its own separate comment.)
:D Michele
Hi Stephen,
On the subject of method. I appreciate your kind offerings however there is a larger context that is disconcerting. Do you know what that is? I heard someone quote a passage in Hosea regarding God being the Lion tearing Judah to pieces. I think it's fine to care about correcting error on the gospel. I don't interrupt you in that. Jesus certainly cared to be theologically correct, I confess that is true. Setting aside theology and addressing the issue of "calling out" someone for their conduct, I must ask: Under what circumstances, for who, did Jesus bare his teeth and claws for?
Who did Paul, bare his teeth and claws for?
They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. matt 23:4
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! gal 5:12
Now David was an adulterer when he was a young man, and Moses a murderer when he was a young man. Yet these men, their heart of love for not only God but His Truth, are our exemplary model! Why do you keep company with brothers who are interested in identifying the so miniscule and occasional misstep of a fellow brother in view of this scriptural account of David and Moses? This disturbs me greatly! Jesus nor Paul tore any man just because he was a sinner - no; Paul wrote them epistles and Jesus dined with them. Our LORD protected the weak and sinful. Instead I notice Him tearing at the men who wanted to keep a track record or measure godliness by what is seen outwardly.
For me to include any one who wants to prevent this truth and grace for God's children, would probably be sinful on my part, condoning false religion.
Do you see what I'm getting at? I hope you do. I see you at this time (and more and more lately!) trying to untie the load and be a peacemaker. I'm thankful! Though you still bridge a gap to a place that should not be bridged... by cooperation.
Can you speak on this.
Humbly and thankfully,
Michele
Michele,
Do you have a degree or the equivalent in psychology? :-) I often get the impression that you are frequently psychoanalyzing the people in these discussions and looking for underlying motives, problems, etc. Some of that is helpful, but sometimes I think it causes you to miss what is being said in your search for something deeper. I think that is the case here.
The expectations I have of Antonio have nothing to do with ministry, attitude, Christ-likeness, or even spiritual maturity. They are simply general expectations I have of every person. This is a debate. When I pointed out (earlier in this thread) that he was being hypocritical, it wasn't because I think he's spiritually immature, or because I think he generally has problems with being hypocritical. It was because he used a tactic in this debate, that of using a pejorative label, and tried to present his side as being different when in reality they are not. Rather than let that continue, I finally decided to point it out... for the readers' sake. NOT for Antonio's sake. Antonio knows what he's doing, he doesn't need me to point it out. I do so to help others see the inconsistencies in his position.
Again I give a comparison: William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens had a formal debate a week or so ago. Very fascinating. Craig mopped up, btw. Anyway, when Craig points out logical errors in Hitchens' arguments, is Craig saying he thinks that Hitchens is immature? No. Another example: this weekend my pastor used Pascal's Wager in his sermon. I disagree with the use of that and plan to make him aware of it. When I show my pastor the logical errors of using Pascal's wager, am I saying I think my pastor has failed to exhibit Christ-like behavior? Not hardly. Indeed, should Antonio cease from criticizing JB Hixson? Surely, Hixson "understands" Antonio's complaints by now, should Antonio just "let it go" and quit "highlighting the bar over his head"? I don't think so, in fact, I don't think Antonio is highlighting any kind of bar over JB's head, just as I am not doing that to Antonio. Both of us are merely putting into words and publicizing our criticisms of another's position. It is not related (for the most part) to spirituality or Christ-like behavior.
See, this where I think you're maybe looking for underlying issues that simply aren't there. When Antonio criticizes JB, I don't see is as A pointing out how bad JB is. I see it as normal debate and discussion - A thinks JB is wrong, and so is detailing those wrong aspects. I have no problem with A's argumentation against JB. I even agree with a couple of his points. Of course I also disagree with several other points, but my disagreement with his arguments doesn't mean I have a problem with him presenting the arguments.
You see, for the most part, none of my disagreements with Antonio are moral or related to character. Sure, he's had a few moral breakdowns, but I rarely speak of those, for precisely the reasons you've mentioned. However, I do speak to the factual, theological disagreements we have. Indeed, he WANTS that, at least he claims to. So no, I don't plan on letting that go. Why would I? Although obviously I am not pushing hard on every issue - I don't follow him around and constantly critique everything he says. But I will point out his theological errors when I have time and feel it necessary... again, not for his sake, but for the sake of those following along. And in doing so, I am not saying anything about his level of maturity, spirituality, or Christ-likeness. I am simply pointing out where I think he is wrong and why. It really is that simple.
Hmm, I wonder who is doing the psychoanalyzing here ;-)?
Mike said calling the other group "Promise Plus" is not gracious or truthful. It may not be gracious but it certainly is true because they do add "essentials" to Jesus' promise of everlasting life as a condition for it. Bob Wilkin referred to them as the "essential" folks which is probably more acceptable to them.
Most analogies break down at one point or another. The shiny new boat with a hole in it versus the old rickety one that doesn't leak isn't too bad, but the chair thing is atrocious. I posed this scenario to my wife: "If a pilot took me to my destination in an airplane with an almost empty fuel tank, did I trust the plane or the pilot?" She said "both, because John Niemela said the promise of everlasting life can't be separated from the One who made it," or something like that. I hope I avoided the plagiarism police here. The truth is the "pilot's promise" was the object of my faith. He didn't renege because I was skeptical of his second promise to return with a bottle of water from the fountain of youth. But I guess the essential truths that he owns the plane and his dad's manufacturing plant built it helped speed up my persuasion to believe him. Jim Ed
Good evening Michele, I hope you're doing well. Just dropping in to let you know that I'm working on a response to your latest to me. Today's been particularly full however and tomorrow's not likely to be much different as I plan for another biz trip to Dallas and Rachel and I must also do final prep for an apologetics class we teach on Wednesday nights. If I have time to respond tomorrow I most certainly will, otherwise I just wanted to give you the courtesy of explaining that it may well be as late as Thursday evening before I can get back to you.
Also, I realized that I did indeed fail to respond to one of Antonio's more direct questions and I intend to address that then as well.
Your patience is appreciated, see ya then.
Michele,
You posted a response to me, but then deleted it. I can still respond to that comment though, would you like me to? Or do you plan on posting a different response later? I realize we are all busy, so if you plan on posting something else later, that is fine. But there were a couple items in your deleted response that I would like to address (even if by email) if you're not going to post anything else.
Good morning Readers,
Yesterday evening Dr. Fred Lybrand left the following comment for my blog, and invitation to dialogue:
Hey All,
I’d love to interact (communicate) with you guys about the Free Grace Movement, FGA, GES, etc. As I read through the comments I have this sense that you all see the FGA statement as a separation (separatist move) or dissociation. Just for the record, GES and FGA have never been joined, so it isn’t a separation. On the other hand, now that I feel I have fully thought through the issue for myself, I’m ready to have a conversation about the GES Gospel. I do admit we want distance…most folks on the internet (and elsewhere?) think GES and FGA are part of the same group; which really isn’t so. What questions could I answer (we’ll see how long I last)?
Grace
Fred
I will be gone at bible study this morning but will return soon to publish comments you might make out of moderation.
I'm glad you've come to visit, Dr. Lybrand.
-Michele
Stephen and Rachel,
I do have a comment to make but like you I have a few balls in the air. I will leave it soon, I am glad that you both are thinking of replies too.
:D Michele
Michele,
Dr. Lybrand's comment seems to confirm what I thought all along - that this statement was a clarification that the two organizations were not associated. Which I already knew, so I was confused why everyone was concerned - and why certain people thought it was so awesome.
Hi Missy,
I appreciate your comments.
It is difficult to imagine there being "no association" between the GES and FGA when I have taken ear to Dr. Radmacher's various discussions on the history, people, thought developments, and relationships, of the free grace movement. It is a solid flow.
I want to know more about the words "no association." This is what Dr. Lybrand said in his newsletter and if he means to say that they are separate entities which operate independent of one another, that would be sensical. We already knew one was for catapulting fg doctrines and the other had been much more of a theological hub. So, what is the meaning by announcing recently that the GES and FGA are "not associated"? He probably touches upon this in another sentence within the newsletter: the GES Gospel.
By the way, I need to apologize to Dr. Lybrand for misunderstanding/interpreting the words "not associated" to mean that the FGA is "disassociating" - because that is a central point he is explaining in his article.
If you have read Dr. Lybrand's article, which at this point right now I am about half-way through, I think I am absorbing that his central interest is to put as much distance as possible between the GES Gospel and, well probably the entire fg movement. This is what I'm interested to hear more about.
I have other comments and questions to ask, but I am hoping to ask them directly as he has committed to being open for that purpose. There is another friend who may want to ask a question, and that will be encouraging. I want to spend some more time to finish reading and thinking carefully of the questions I would like to explore.
I just want to offer a prayer too, for Dr. Lybrand and for the atmosphere as others participate here or on his blog, that it will not be wearisome to him. I am excited to have a direct source from which to exchange communication. In itself it is an answer to prayer.
Thanks for reading and sharing your reaction.
Michele
Michele,
Thanks for your thoughts and clarification. Motives get hard to guess, but you are aiming in the right direction.
I've always been a fan and supportive of GES, but in recent years there has been a decided drift away (on GES's part) from my personal convictions / understanding about what Classical Free Grace doctrine is all about.
In an effort to help bring Free Gracer's together, we began to realize that their is not unity among us...especially as we try to keep convincing one another about our own views.
The fact is the GES has a really different view of the gospel from most of us...which really turns out to be a deal-killer.
I am just hoping we can go on and build what we are doing...but most of those we are seeking dialog with are broadly convinced we are one and the same (GES and FGA). Which then means we are distracted in our efforts by trying to explain that we don't agree with GES and aren't aligned with them.
Why not just tell the truth? GES is one thing and we are another. The trick, however, is that GES does not hold to essentials of FG theology...they have morphed (they would say 'grown') beyond what it means to be Free Grace.
If GES is something new...let it be what it is...but it isn't correct to align with all of us who hold to a historic Free Grace understanding.
There's the motive---lets just go with the truth!
Grace,
Fred Lybrand
P.S. I hit enter too fast...somebody proof my comments for me! FRL
Hello Michele, I'm thrilled that Fred is willing to participate directly for the sake of clarity.
Fred, thank you so much for your willingness to do that.
Missy, I'm glad to explain why at least I see an official "not associated" as encouraging. Mainly, it has to do with moving toward clarity. You, for example indicate that you "already knew", but Michele indicates she finds such a thing "difficult to imagine" (subject to some definition) in light of her own source. Something I'd ask Fred then is for his accounting of "the history, people, thought developments, and relationships, of the free grace movement", especially as regards the FGA.
I think a key to understanding "why" this is viewed as so important to many, regardless of which direction they lean in the debate, is found in Fred's own words that "most folks on the internet (and elsewhere?) think GES and FGA are part of the same group; which really isn’t so."
I like this because when Wilkin spoke at our church, "distance" was really the extent of our original goal -- to make it clear that we should not be considered associated with him. This doesn't indicate any animosity toward BW personally, I've dialoged with BW cordially even since then, but we felt the revealed differences were significant enough that a distinction needed to be made.
If that seems hard to understand then consider if you invited someone to your church to teach a session on "how to do evangelism" and they caught you unaware by teaching a blatant LS point of view on the matter that you hadn't realized they had adopted, you'd probably wanna clear that up with your congregation afterward. I believe the same principal applies here and is why the statement is viewed as significant by so many.
Michele, thanks for allowing me to digress a bit from our suspended conversation but I really wanted to answer Missy's question before moving on. I also don't want to interfere with Fred's participation so I'm happy to put our previous conversation on hold for a bit and give the floor more fully to Fred and any who would interact with him directly.
Hi Dr. Lybrand,
I've been looking forward to getting in here to confirm and encourage you, all day, and finally now I have some time! :D My two year old son quit taking afternoon naps, just last week, so now my quiet time has been moved to the end of the day....
I would just like to acknowledge publicly that the things which you wrote in your letter concerning relationships and effort to dialogue are true to what you have shared with me beginning back when we first talked for a bit during the FGA conference in October of last year.
-You expressed desire to speak of FG thinkers on the gospel in a gracious way, and I believe you succeeded.
-I remember you saying that you had reached out to Zane, and had requested him to interact with the FGA or else with you yourself. You told me back at that time that he had declined. I made a comment to that and you insisted how important it was that he would respond and come to the table.
-You also spent some time in your letter pointing out the third option that "Christ crucified" is the content that must be preached. This was a significant contribution to the conversation, for me, both over the phone and now.
-I also appreciated your direction back to the actual content of Zane's original teachings.
-It is 100% accurate to say from what I know that many attempts have been made and have failed, for both sides, to seek to sit face to face.
I am compelled to add secondhand testimony to what you've said in your letter because I can see how consistent and even vulnerable you have been and I appreciate it.
I also want to let readers know that I privately apologized to you for the unacknowledged thrust of my blog posts.
You wrote,
As I read through the comments I have this sense that you all see the FGA statement as a separation (separatist move) or dissociation. The responsibility for the publication of this angle lies with me, sir. I'm not sure if I am mistaken, quite yet. Consider the material here as "a cry" on my part. Being a man I can see is characterized by grace in this very matter, you also know how to hold onto your true assessments for a long time, because of grace, and then one day, out come the concerns, plain and real for what they are.... As I said privately, being mistaken is much, much better than silence!
I may be grounded in a free grace sub-culture that has its own take into the issue of history and relationships, and if you don't mind this is what I'll save for an upcoming question/comment. I have been encouraged to think in ways to cooperate. Though I admit the community that equips me is much smaller in scope and in theological perception (of course!) which is why your input is so very crucial. If I have convinced anybody of anything that is not true, I'd like to take the moment to make it right.
Again I want to apologize for whatever content may be misleading in what I've been holding as the big picture as I have gotten to know FGA, "neithers/both-ers," and even recently GES people.
Thanks so much for helping in this,
Michele
Michele, I can understand where you see that flow - where anyone within the FG movement can, since it involves so many of the same people and grew from the same roots, so to speak. Stephen, I understand the desire to distance yourself theologically from those you don't have common beliefs with.
However, I am that target audience that everyone keeps talking about where the concern over association is directed - the unconverted (to Free Grace, that is). People are smart enough to get that two separate associations might indicate some variants in belief. We (the unconverted) didn't really need a statement to point that out, is what I meant.
I don't know the full history behind the FGA, but I do know that for two years I have been listening to at least one party persistantly work towards dividing and defining those variants between GES and FGA - and the most outspoken of that party didn't even join the FGA until he was sure the divisional foundation was well under way. It was interesting and rather sad to witness.
I do agree that the disparity that was cultivated between Traditional Free Grace* and Redefined Free Grace* requires a truce and a split to stop the war and bring a peace that will once again place the focus on saving souls. But, I would hope that in their zeal to "keep the Gospel pure" leaders of the FGA have remained watchful of those within their own org that helped orchestrate the war. (The GES is not as apparent, as I believe they were on the defensive - but I would recommend a watchful eye to them as well) George Washington was the choice for our first President because as general of our revolutionary fighters, he had the power behind him to rule, and he surrendered it back to the people. He proved he could be trusted with that power. You might say Jesus did something very similar. :)
*(this is what the "outsiders" call you guys, BTW)
Dr. Lybrand,
The unassociated clarification statement does seem to imply that those that have "dual citizenship" in both the GES & FGA should pick a country. May I ask if that is an intent?
Michele,
Thanks for your kind words. I can say that my great desire is for both unity and motion. The enemy would love for us to get bogged down in triflings...but he's also happy if we get bogged down for good reasons too. Just get bogged down!
Yet, the Lord is gracious and brings clarity and momentum out of these things.
Most of us have a values conflict between truth and relationships...and it is really tough on us because we don't want to compromise either. For my own walk before the Lord, I realize that Truth is just a little more important to me than relationships...so, I have a way to choose between the two. I chose my own convictions. Of course, I'd love for all my relationships to work perfectly too...but God hasn't shown me how to pull that off (yet).
I love all the folks on the other side of the issue, and I'd love to have us all reconciled. However, I can't give up my convictions before the Lord (I believe in the Bema Seat (1 Cor 5; Rom 14).
Yet, I really want to build with all who will join in...we'll see what God does with all of this!
Grace and Truth,
FRL
Missy,
I appreciated your comment a lot. I have a curiosity to know (if it were possible) how many FG people don't ascribe to either side/either answer. I have been watching your comments at Rose's blog lately and at other times you and I have come to describe what may be a similar perspective on the COSF. Still, my concerns are upon grace and the Spirit of God receiving the glory (less on our personalities).
While at both the FGA and GES conference whenever people came into conversation with me the one thing I heard said over and over again, was how unfortunate it was that this debate was more about personalities than it was about the actual scriptures. I've internalized this lesson, as you were saying, to serve is to get underneath. The LORD laid before me in the last two days James 4:16: "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." It cuts me down, I admit it. May I always point up with the resources He is giving me in the day.
I am glad for you,
Michele
Hi Dr. Lybrand,
I took note of your comment,
For my own walk before the Lord, I realize that Truth is just a little more important to me than relationships...so, I have a way to choose between the two. I chose my own convictions. Of course, I'd love for all my relationships to work perfectly too...but God hasn't shown me how to pull that off (yet).I smile, because I sense that you care and I know that it has not been easy. You made some of those difficulties clear in your open letter.
I have two comment-questions I am writing at this moment. Please check back soon, and thanks again for reading and responding! It means more than you can know!
Sincerely,
Michele
Dr. Lybrand,
Antonio addresses a question to you from another thread at my blog. He writes:
Fred,
Do you identify yourself fully with the doctrines and positions of L.S. Chafer, let us say, in the doctrines of the greatest interest of Free Grace theology?
or would it be more accurate to say that you have a more progressive understanding than he did?
Did you mention the issue of deity in your open letter? Was this an oversight?
Would you be willing to have a back and forth, publicly, with me, one by one, on the issues you raise against the GES?
thanks ahead of time,
Antonio da Rosa
Dear Readers,
Antonio's post was answered by Dr. Lybrand in this post.
Sorry for the inconvenience in the last couple days. I was experiencing intermittent internet access.
Michele
Good evening Dr. Lybrand,
Today I experience the LORD completely lifting me up and I praise Him for it. I assume that you are as well; I think it must be due to the prayers of many FG friends. His presence is so wonderful, so undeserved! :D
I am very glad to share two extended comments for your feedback. This is one of two.
There is one thing I am grateful for, regarding both the open letter and the newsletter, without qualification. That is, it provided a kind of CLOSURE. Closure is a sneak-peak word-concept which I am writing into a document to help FG dialogue.
Remember I used this word on the phone last time; you seemed to perk up a bit at the sound of it too. In the document I am writing, I begin introducing the concept of closure, saying, "Closure is critical for any discussion. It acknowledges that there are many other topics which deserve examination."
One of the things fg people are experiencing here on the internet even this week, is the problem of losing sight of relationship because of theological disagreement. It does not matter how little or large the disagreement, does it? To think someone else is wrong, makes one think they must be bold and assertive into someone else's world! And, to think ones-self is incorrect causes plaguing self-doubt. If you stop and think about it for a second, these are incredible emotional extremes! What about holding both the Christian closeness for one another and the truth in tandem without losing either? As you are saying you would like to keep both but as of yet don't know how to realize that. It may require a more patient and humble approach to thinking one might possess "truth."
Closure, regardless how it is achieved, gives time for peace. It permits meditation on what had been exchanged. It gives time for new works of exegesis to be conceived. It allows for reconnection in unconditional love and affirmation for everyone in the discussion. Teachers are held to a higher responsibility to keep onesself from error - I understand, but they are also commanded for unity just the same as the rest of us believers - which at least in the modeling sense, they will receive more strict judgment!
What FG needs is a structure by which to give integrity to theological disagreement. On the gospel, sure, but how about everything else? How about a way to handle disagreement within FG? How about disagreements with people outside of FG? I am writing a document to give a structure by which natural disagreement, in the process of learning and examining the scriptures, will be turned into many positive benefits. I realize how lofty it sounds. And that I am so uneducated. But I give it as a free will offering, just because I am moved, to try. If it provides nothing useful to anyone, no harm can come by having given it.
There is a huge, huge need for successful navigation through theological conflict, so much bigger than the declarations made this very week. So much bigger than this one issue of the gospel. But even in the case of the FG gospel, it is just so apparent that people aren't done thinking about it. How many years did you spend thinking one way? And then spent as many years disagreeing with your original point of view? Yet in both cases, you were honestly seeking to have a good answer. How many new thoughts did you give in just this one paper? Do you agree that in 2010, someone else will probably publish a paper which will notice new things just as significant as yours, which people will need a couple years to explore?
As I have heard FG leaders say at the recent GES conference, "Scripture needs to be THE bar."
Learning will never be done. It will never be done even while we take occasional moments of closure, which are indeed times God uses for our benefitting.
I'd like to hear your mind on this.
Thank you so much for reading these thoughts.
-Michele
Hi Michele, glad to hear your day has been so uplifting. This is not a complete reply but I wanted to hit a couple things you just mentioned before further conversation moves past this.
>>Sorry for the inconvenience in the last couple days. I was experiencing intermittent internet access.
I feel your pain. I'm a computer guy for a living and can't think of anything worse than "intermittent Internet access" problems. I MUST be connected! ;-)
>>To think someone else is wrong, makes one think they must be bold and assertive into someone else's world!
First, I believe you are perhaps referring to Rachel and/or I (and perhaps others) in his reference so I'd like to address it while it's fresh. If you don't mean to indicate us... well... that'd be really swell and we'd be pleased to have been wrong.
Second, Not at all -- but it does mean I might see fit to point out they are factually/logically/theologically wrong, depending on the circumstance. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing intrinsically wrong with being bold or assertive either. Rachel and I have debated a lot, so perhaps that has trained us to be a bit more bold and assertive than some prefer but you cast it as a relational problem while we'd maintain that it's as simple as a truth problem. Relationships, while certainly important, simply don't trump truth.
>>And, to think ones-self is incorrect causes plaguing self-doubt.
For some perhaps, but I don't see it that way at all. Rachel has frequently changed my mind in our years of marriage on major issues, and I have changed hers a few times as well, yet neither of us have plaguing self-doubts. You might argue that it's different because we have an established relationship so I'll provide another. I also changed my mind on Calvinism as a direct result of something JoW sent me, yet we remain on opposite sides in the larger scheme of things and have no "relationship" to speak of. She proved me wrong, big deal, why should that cause me plaguing self-doubt? JoW, in proving me wrong, brought me to a more convicting truth. If someone is plagued by self-doubt to consider they are wrong then I lovingly submit that their problems aren't simply relational.
I would like to say more for sake of clarity but it's after 1:30 here and I'm slumpin' after what has been my most active night of blogging in months. :-) I do appreciate what I think you are trying to achieve, and I will certainly endeavor to keep relationships in mind at all times. In return I would ask you to appraise me/us with fresh eyes and perhaps realize that I/we have done more to that end than you are giving credit for. I love you Michele, and I do hope your efforts bear spiritual fruit.
Michele,
I just now went back and realizes I didn't respond to your post.
I think you make an excellent point, which is all about having room for conversation. One of the specific goals Dr. Bing and I had as we hammered out the first draft of the Constitution/Bylaws together (locked in a hotel)...we knew we wanted room for the conversation (for example, different views of repentance).
Further, when Phil Congdon, Elliot Johnson, Charlie Bing, Earl Radmacher, and I hammered out the first draft of the FGA Covenant---it was with the same idea in mind. We wanted to make room. There are lots of folks (even 'Calvinists' who are actually free grace); why can't we talk about these nuanced issues?
Of course, the FGA is about far more than theological discussions, as we really want to build the whole movement in order to really 'get the message out' (as Dr. Radmacher likes to say!).
Curiously, in those early days some of our friends complained that we were making the Covenant too broad & that Lordshippers could join. We never bought that; though, of course, any disingenuous person can join anything---which doesn't have to be a Lordshipper, it could be anyone with any theological agenda.
At any rate, my hope is that the FGA will grow to make room for conversation; but the conversation happens inside the boundaries of what's provided for in the Covenant.
Specifically, it says,
"Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life."
This is why I wrote this open letter and why the Counsel (both last year and this year)issued statements about this point (#3).
Unless someone invents a different hermeneutic, she/he can see that one of the boundaries in the Covenant is faith in the cross, etc. (the finished work of Christ). At the very least it isn't faith in one mention of the promise He made before his death (The GES Gospel).
So, always the tension. We love all, but we have to sort out a way to determine who's in there pulling along with us. That's the aim...and it takes plenty of room for a conversation.
Thanks for your good thoughts,
FRL
Hi Stephen,
Actually, I was referring to a dear, dear friend of mine when I acknowledged high tension in theological discussion. I have that kind of relationship, where even in the case that I say something true that cuts a bit in the moment, he still knows I care after the moment.
I want you to know that I see your transparent sensitivity and compassion, in the last couple months. I'm grateful, thank you so much. Today I am gone again, I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your comments in this thread! We will talk a little later today perhaps.
I appreciate your presence on my blog.
Michele
It seems to me that some folks in the FGA camp would like for GES to discontinue using the terms "Free Grace" and "Faith Alone in Christ Alone" even though they have done so since its beginning. These are rather catchy phrases but "Free Grace" is sorta like saying "Tooth Dentist" and "Faith Alone" can apparently be understood to include more than believing Jesus' promise of everlasting life. Although, I don't think "Believing in Jesus" was ever intended Biblically to have a broader scope. Of course I am referring to what is neededed to obtain it, and without the promise we have nothing. Adding repentence or other essentials complicates the requirement beyond the ability of a young child to comprehend.
I saw one sentence that read: "At the very least it isn't faith in one mention of the promise He made before his death (The GES Gospel)." I really don't think very many FGA people believe GES has limited their faith to one mention of the promise He made to a thief on a cross. We are told that separation is their agenda but obviously it is to discredit Zane and GES. I wish they would spew their venom to cults instead of other believers. JimEd
Hi JimEd,
Thanks for leaving your reaction. It ought to matter, and it does to me. RIght now I'm speechless.
Your friend,
Michele
Hello Readers,
I am moving three comments from another thread into this one. I appreciate your grace and forgiveness if you are not pleased.... One from Rachel, Kev and Gary.
Apologies,
Michele
Readers,
Rachel writes:
Antonio,
I assume you see the irony in this exchange with Fred that you've just had...
Readers,
Kev writes:
Antonio,
You said PS: It is a shame that you don't want to fully discuss your paper with me. Are you willing to consider your understaning of the passages you use in your paper may be faulty?I think Rachel missed the mark with her comment - that goes well beyond ironic ,it is hysterical.
Kev
Readers,
Gary writes:
Great questions Antonio. There are many FG people who would appreciate some straightforward answers from one who has publicly called for repentance from the GES. Since Fred has already publicly extended his hand of fellowship to a blogger who has relentlessly conducted a "seek and destroy" mission against all GES "hereticks" for at least 2 yrs, Fred clearly has a responsibility before the Lord to answer everyone who considers themselves a part of the FG movement. I also find it interesting that on this same blog, Fred denounces all "seek and destroy" tactics. (?)
Bro. Lybrand, you said, "For my own walk before the Lord, I realize that Truth is just a little more important to me than relationships...I love all the folks on the other side of the issue, and I'd love to have us all reconciled. However, I can't give up my convictions before the Lord (I believe in the Bema Seat (1 Cor 5; Rom 14)." Thank you for this crucial reminder. It is easy to forget this in the midst of the discussion. No matter how gracious we are, if we are not on the side of truth, all our graciousness goes for nought. I agree with you wholeheartedly on what you said. I also love all on both "sides" & have great respect for them as well. But thank you again for reminding me of the most important consideration of all.
Post a Comment