There's been a few emails asking where it is that Dr. Lybrand, FGA President has joined the comment thread here. He wants to interact for a short time and answer questions. I am very thankful that he has offered to interact on the internet. Of course there are other locations including his own newly started FG blog, here.
He has left a few comments thus far in this thread, here. Scroll down to the bottom....
Please feel welcome to leave a comment or question. I apologize for not being around much to publish the comments. My computer needed a new part and I think everything is back in order now.... :D
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
profile
blog archive
-
▼
2009
(76)
-
▼
April
(11)
- Secondary Separationism, Part 2
- Secondary Separationism, Part 1
- The Teaching of "Secondary Separation"; Introduction
- "Heresy:" Pickering & Swindoll
- Dr. Lybrand Welcomes Questions
- My Introduction to Separationism
- A Worthy Intermission
- Comments on FGA disassociation from GES
- Latreuo and Proskyneo in the NT
- Jesus vs. YHWH: Titles & Attributes
- Devotion for April 3: A short poem
-
▼
April
(11)
24 comments:
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
Hi Antonio,
I copied this post of yours above into the thread where he may notice it through prior participation:
hereSorry for the inconveniences!
-Michele
Antonio,
Thanks for the questions!
I do identify with Dr. Chafer, but I'm not sure I could use the term 'fully' with anyone (largely because I haven't studied anyone that thoroughly). I do agree with much of what Chafer said, but on some things I'd change the emphasis, and on others I remain convinced of something different (for example, I don't think the Sermon on the Mount is only for those who will dwell in the Millennial Kingdom).
I would not say at all that I have a 'more progressive' understanding than he did. For me, it would be the height of arrogance to describe myself is progressing beyond what dear Dr. Chafer could see. In my view nothing is really about progressive as much as it is about 'right/wrong' and 'true/false'. I know theologies can develop, but they can also twist as well.
I did not mention the issue of deity (though my quote of Bruce Abercrombie does at the end of the letter). I don't mean to sound rude, but your question about deity makes it sound like you haven't yet read my Open Letter, is this true? Not mentioning deity was not an oversight...I was simply trying to stay on target with the articles Zane had written. Others have written much about this issue as well, but it was not Zane's focus in the articles I addressed.
I'm sorry, but I really can't do a pure back-and-forth at this time. I just announced my retirement from the pastorate, so I'm a bit focused on figuring out what I'm going to do for the next 20 years!
I'd be glad to answer a few questions here, but I've really said what I aim to say. If there are things I could clarify, or things I'm mistaken on, I'd be glad to respond.
Sorry, that's the best I can do just now.
Grace,
FRL
hello Michele, how are you?
Marco
Hi Marco,
I'm doing fine. I should look and see if you have done a new blog post?
-Michele
Fred,
I had fully read your letter before the questions.
Now you state that you wanted to stay within Zane's papers (the two part paper, How to Lead a Person to Christ). But Zane does bring up the deity issue, Fred. In the first installment he discusses the difference between what the Samaritans understood about Jesus and what Martha did.
I do believe that it was a significant oversight on your part. Could we now ask for your position on this issue? What exactly if anything needs to be understood about the ontological makeup of Jesus in order that one may have eternal life?
Is this not a critical understanding and issue for those on your side of Free Grace theology?
Furthermore, it is apparant that developments have occurred in both dispensationalism and Free Grace theology since the time of L.S. Chafer. Is Chafer now the benchmark for dispensationalism and Free Grace theology?
L.S. Chafer and John Walvoord, in their book, Major Bible Themes, in the chapter on assurance, under the main heading, "The Confirming Testimony of Christian Experience" states:
On the basis of the fact that Christ indwells him, the believer is appointed to judge himself as to whether he is in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5)They then go on to list 8 main subjective tests for one to have assurance.
Do you agree with this type of introspection for assurance? Are there Free Grace leaders now who put into practice this type of introspection for assurance of salvation?
Is current Free Grace thought on this matter greatly removed from this type of practice for assurance? Is assurance a trade-mark doctrine for Free Grace theology?
It seems to me, Fred, that there has been major development and/or progression on many, many key doctrines and passages since the time of L.S. Chafer, John Walvoord, and even Charles Ryrie, in the movement of Free Grace Theology; development that would negate, contradict, and/or replace the classic Free Grace of L.S. Chafer and company. To deny this would be to close ones eyes to the facts.
The attempt to state that F.G. theology of the FGA is in line with Chafer is fallacious. Your paper starts out with the appeal to emotion and authority that colors the rest of the treatise. Such argumentation is constructed to cause emotion to be stirred in its readers, apart from evidence.
The GES has as much right to the foundation of Chafer as the FGA. We share a rich heritage. But development and progress in exegesis has occurred since that time, and it seems that the GES has been on the cutting edge of this work, while others have seemed to sit on their laurels, allowing traditionalism to set in.
L.S. Chafer and Walvoord made significant developments in dispensationalism and Free Grace theology from the time of Darby and Scofield. I hope that this indeed continues to happen!
Furthermore, L.S. Chafer has made many statements that fit well within the parameters of the developments that have been made since his time by advocates of the GES.
The following are articles I wrote:
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer uses Refined Consistent Free Grace Theology phraseologyDr. Lewis Sperry Chafer uses Consistent Free Grace Theology phraseology Part 2Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer uses Consistent Free Grace Theology phraseology Part 3Developments occur, precision is sought, as new issues arise that challenge current thinking. Zane Hodges' seminal work and thinking in the area of saving faith is the culmination of many painstaking years of exegetical work.
As two last questions:
Do you consider the GES gospel to be heresy?
Do you consider the GES gospel to be a false gospel?
Thanks in advance for your expected answers.
Antonio
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?
Antonio,
I'm sorry, but I really can't have a blog-conversation with this kind of post. I count (at least) 8 different questions you are asking...along with a number of accusations...and a few arguments against my anticipated answers.
It would be incredibly helpful if you would indulge me and just throw 2 specific questions my way that I could answer. At that point, you could challenge my answers.
Thanks much,
FRL
Dear Readers and Friends,
I am going to move all these comments, by Rachel Kev and Gary, to another thread which is already making provision to discuss the "how," history and so-forth of theological discussions.
It seems a great thing to me if present conversations would not need to be bound by former limitations.
In keeping with my long-term interest to give integrity to disagreement, I do not approve of mixing both the theological discussion itself and discussion over ethics, rules and standards - which is just as important, if not more, considering the history of struggles in this area.
I feel it unkind to mix these, please honor me as I try to honor others. I'm deeply saddened over myself lately how I am capable of hurting others through what I think at the time, is wise and good, but isn't. I am committed today to make certain that the LORD is doing more for me, than I am doing for myself, in seeing His will come into fruition.
Please leave this thread for Antonio to ask Dr. Lybrand questions of scripture.
Thank you, Michele
Bro. Lybrand,
I look forward to your answers to bro. Antonio's questions as well, though I certainly don't expect you to answer them all at once!
I have a question myself, & that would be this: would you consider a person that came to Christ under the "GES Gospel" (to use the name for it you have chosen) to be saved, or rather to need further evangelization in order to be saved? Let me say right here that I am not trying to pigeonhole you, I am sincerely curious as to your answer. If you have already answered it elsewhere, I apologize, I have not noticed it. May the Lord bless you bro. Fred.
Hi David,
Yes, and that's fine too. I realize there are a few other places to have theological discussion, just for here I do welcome any person's participation so long as it is not used as platform for effectual limitation by the discussion of alleged shortcomings of the participants.
Thanks and I appreciate your grace!
Michele
I'm sorry Michele! We must have been posting at about the same time, or I would not have posted this question here! Therefore, I have also asked it at bro. Lybrand's own blog as well. I appreciate his openness in answering these questions, & I gratly appreciate your graciousness as well! I hope to see real communication in a spirit of brother (& sister!) hood from this. May the Lord bless you!
Hey All,
Being new to this blogging idea, I'm discovering that I've stepped into a variety of tangential controversies...so, it seems easiest for me to address my Open Letter on the GES Gospel (and other things) at my own site.
I'm posting this same message at some others sites I've visited. Thanks for the opportunity to be in the conversation on the GES Gospel.
My blog is at www.fredlybrand.org
God bless,
FRL
Hi Michele,
If I'm posting in the wrong place, please feel free to move me wherever I should be. Thanks.
:-)
Hi Antonio,
I just wanted to let you know how helpful your comments are for me. You have a gift of putting things together in a way that my mind can grasp. That's what I really love about your blog. (And thank you Michele for inviting Antonio here at your blog!!!) I don't like the fighting. But learning is very exciting for me, and Antonio, you have a way of saying things that help me see the issues clearly. Thank you for that.
You really helped me by explaining that there is major developments and progression on many key doctrines and passages since the time of Chafer, Walvoord, and Ryrie in the movement of free grace theology.
And I loved how you said this....
"Developments occur, precision is sought, as new issues arise that challenge current thinking. Zane Hodges' seminal work and thinking in the area of saving faith is the culmination of many painstaking years of exegetical work."All Zane did was share with us the fruit of his studies for which I am very grateful!!! We need to continue to grow in our understanding of God's Word.
One thing that I wish our friends on the other side would grasp.....
Zane Hodges and GES NEVER changed on what the saving content was. It's always been the same. But they have focused in on the bulls eye. It's believing in Jesus Christ for eternal life that saves.
Again let me say it....
It's believing *IN* Jesus Christ for eternal life that saves.
The cross and the resurrection is where our precious Savior took our sins away!!! Of course we will always preach the cross. Whenever I read from our friends on the other side who say we're preaching a "crossless gospel," I cringe! Nothing could be farther from the truth. They just don't "get it!"
I also have come to understand that the term "gospel" is broader than just the saving content to be believed. The gospel incorporates ALL of the good news about Jesus Christ. Paul preached the broad gospel. Praise God for giving us Paul's writings. Praise God for His entire Word!!!
I just wanted you, Antonio, to know that you are helping at least little "ole" me out here in Blog Land. Thank you my friend.
God's best to all of my brothers and sisters in Christ. How could I do less than love those for whom Christ died.
Rejoicing in Jesus,
Diane
:-)
All one has to do is read the articles from the GES newsletter and journal from the beginning- (1988) to the present to see how and when the GES gospel was developed.
This notion that major developments and progression on many key doctrines and passages is misleading at best. God has always had a people. It did not take the coming of Prof. Hodges to get the "saving message" right.
Read the Pastoral Epistles. Paul instructions to Timothy (2 Tim 4:1- ) does not allow the above thinking as you mean it to be.
Major development has taken place in history, such as the reformation. The reformation did not result in a NEW doctrine being developed concerning how to have eternal life. It has always been by "faith alone, in Christ alone." Many re-discovered the Biblical truth.
The GES gospel is new. No one has ever embrace it. Being new doesn't make it wrong, or right. It is the fact that for the FIRST TIME in history has it been REVEALED as it is being articulated by GES.
Diane,
Well said!
God's best to all of my brothers and sisters in Christ. How could I do less than love those for whom Christ died.You are a model of the kind of interaction I'd be hoping to witness.
Your sister in Christ,
Michele
Post a Comment